Django Unchained (2012) 5/5: A modern day classic

Django Unchained is a modern classic and it is one of the best westerns I have ever seen. These idealistic superlatives are necessary for the film to be praised as a current release but on a more realistic level the film fulfills all the requirements to merit this praise no matter how hollow it may sound. It is a classic and time will prove it and people must stop thinking that all the great movies were already made in some sort of warped golden age. All of this cannot be addressed in this current review but when one considers the history of the western film genre it is easy to see where this film deserves to be placed among the stars. This is probably the first western that actually empowers a black man by placing him in the lead role as the star gunfighter it  is also the first western to tackle the issue of slavery which was a feature of this period but conveniently ignored in previous western films. Other westerns tended to focus on the civil war and its after math, the struggle for the farmers on the prairie to settle in the west due to the lawlessness that was prevalent and the duels between the whites and the Indians that settled in America long before the arrival of the puritan pilgrims. This is the first to tackle the issue of slavery head on by allowing you to see the west through the eyes of a black bounty hunter named Django (Jamie Foxx) who is determined to be reunited with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Django is aided to do this the bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who offers to  free him from his bondage in chattel slavery on the terms that he helps him to catch a group of the outlaw Brittle brothers on the run. After this task, where Django gains his freedom,  and several others are accomplished Django sets out with Schultz  to the Candie plantation where his wife is held by Calvin Candie (Leonardo Dicaprio) whose hobbies include Mandingo fighting. On the Candie plantation we encounter his main house slave, Stephen (Samuel Jackson), who suspects the two travelling bounty hunters who arrived on the pretext of buying Mandingo fighters when in fact they wish to purchase Broom Hilda.

  The supporting performances in this film are so strong that at least one will be nominated for the academy award and will win if there is any justice.

Positives

This film takes place in 1858, two years before the civil war, and covers much of the southern United States including Texas, Tennessee and Mississippi. This year is important because this is the best way to become accustomed to the culture of slavery, its decadence and decline. After the civil war one would only hear in the westerns about what happened in the past or the legacy of racism that began with slavery. In this film we are thrown into the culture of slavery and the use of the word nigger is almost a matter of fact and is simply a part of daily life. It does highlight that the use of the word nigger is here to stay particular with us poor black folks who have adapted it for our own use. This is one of the legacies of slavery. This is not the first feature on slave life in America however it is one of the few that empowers a black man to take control of his destiny once given the opportunity in the corrupt era of slavery and all of this was before the civil war where the great Abraham Lincoln becomes the hero of the blacks in America. This film also goes ahead to show us the legacy of the house slave vs. the domestic slave duel which has existed until the present day.  The House Slave is traditionally represented by the integrationists championed by people like Martin Luther King Jr and Barack Obama who merely champion the principles of bonding with our white brethren and so emphasize that we must prove ourselves by acting like them. This group tends to excuse the damaging effects of slavery since they enjoyed a lot of the benefits being members of the white masters’ household. They have been desperate to prove themselves worthy of the white man ever since the end of slavery and so emphasize that they should live together. The field slave tends to represent the separatist group represented by the likes of Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey who advocated that there was no place for the black man in the white man’s world particularly if he wishes to stand on his own two feet. The field hand was usually the one brutalized by slavery and is more likely to rebel against the whites. There is still a need to revolt because there are many whites who still believe that they are superior to blacks and other ethnic groups despite the many attempts of the integrationists to kiss ass. The ruling class of America is still largely represented by whites whereas blacks are largely relegated to petty bourgeois status which includes the high income group of entertainers and sports personalities (still relying on their physicality to enjoy some form of status with the whites. The more they rely on their physicality the less chance they have of seizing control and so they merely become embroiled in the propaganda of the ruling class. Blacks must seek to control the means of production as opposed to merely relying on wages for not matter how high they are it is still a form of servitude).  This film highlights the origins between these two black groups with more depth than most films of the past.  In this film the field hand actually comes out on top whereas traditionally, in films such as Gone with the Wind (1939), the house slave was deemed more respectable for presentation on screen.  The House Slave played by Samuel L. Jackson represents the opposite of Mammie played by Hattie Macdaniel in Gone with the Wind who was on the side of the white protagonists that were championed as paragons of virtue. In this film the white master represented by Calvin Candie does not represent the paragon of virtue. It would be ironic if Jackson could win the supporting actor academy award as Macdaniel did in 1939. This is a superb performance by him and he is played by Jackson as a simpering uncle tom with parkinsons, or so it seems at first, but gradually you get to realize the influence he has over Candie and the plantation and you become aware of it towards the end. There are times when his tremors give way to an upright man who does not need the use of his cane which probably suggests that he was fooling his masters all along in order to move up the ranks in the domestic household.

The film expertly uses the strong supporting characters to represent the various transitions required for Django to become truly unchained by the end. At first we encounter Schultz played by Christoph Waltz who gives Django his freedom and trains him in the art of gun fighting and being a bounty hunter. He even teaches him how to read.  He takes him through his paces and helps him to rescue Broomhilda however more is required particularly as he encounters Calvin Candie, expertly played by Dicaprio in one of his best performances. Schultz meets his match here and he contrasts with Candie because he empowers Django and begins to take a more enlightened view of slavery whereas the brutality of candie towards his slaves is based on the rights towards his property that was legally purchased. Schultz is not accustomed to its brutality particularly the images of a slave being fed to the dogs. Of all the strong supporting cast in this film Dicaprio should be nominated and, if possible, win the academy award. His character represents a significant turning point in the film with the help of Jackson’s house slave. He truly epitomizes the decadence of the slave society prior to the civil war and here the slave masters are not portrayed as gentlemen and their ladies fair and beautiful. The decadence is all around and Quentin Tarantino accurately portrays this through the character of Calvin Candie.  Jackson’s character represents the outcome of the last transition in this film and is dealt with accordingly for it is here that the duel between house slave and field slave comes to a head and all is revealed in the final act. Jamie Foxx is not overshadowed by these other actors and holds his own and delivers a strong performance, probably his best since 2004 because he truly portrays the growth in his character; the cool and suave black gunslinger. Before there the blacks of north displayed their illustrious wares after the civil war Django of the south rode on a horse. 

There are some humorous moments in the film particularly regarding the bags on the head of a white militia which is a precursor to the Ku Klux Clan. Some of the moments of humour are laugh out loud based on how shocking the reality is.

Tarantino deserves applause for this effort because he has been consistent in portraying strong black protagonists particularly in Pulp Fiction (1994) and  Jackie Brown (1997). His partnership with Samuel Jackson has consistently borne fruit and Django Unchained is another effective collaboration between the two.

The spaghetti styled western is effectively brought to life here in a most vivid way. It reminded me of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly directed by Sergio Leone. I am sure there are other influences utilized by Tarantino however it reminded me of the style in the Sergio Leone films but with much more graphic detail. The treatment handed out to the slaves sometimes seems to be colourful however it merely grounds the context within the period of slavery. The physical brutalization in the form of whips, branding and castration is certainly more effective than the use of the word nigger. This is why in the old spaghetti films the main objective of the protagonists was treasure of some sort in the form of gold but in this film Django’s objective is to be reunited with his wife who he married while he was a slave before being forcibly separated.  That is his treasure although he does end the film fairly well off in terms of money and freedom papers intact for he and his wife.  This is why context is important. This film is a modern classic because it is the first western to focus exclusively on slavery which was clearly a feature of the gunslinging west but conveniently ignored in past western films so as to portray the white protagonists in a positive light. Unforgiven (1992) was one of the first revisionist westerns where the white protagonist would have a black partner.  William Munny (Clint Eastwood) and the black man Ned  (Morgan Freeman) go out on an their final adventure to claim a reward and just like this film it has a shootout that is part cathartic. This occurred after the civil war however and did not take it as far as this current release.   Django Unchained tackles slavery head on with a fictional twist and a sort of revisionist history so as to empower the black protagonist, Django, at the centre. As the first western film to do this it must be considered a modern classic. 

 I did not mind the violence because it was gratuitous as well as cathartic although it can be seen as excessive and bordering on the absurd. This highly stylized level of violence does serve its purpose and many people will remember the lash of the whip. It becomes ingrained in your mind as the film progresses and you realize that it is a matter of fact. In Glory when the slave, or former slave, played by Denzel Washington revealed the scars caused by whiplashes it was shocking then but in Django it is brought down to earth as a common feature of life in the south. It is hardly remarkable. The use of the word nigger is not offensive for it is  also a matter of fact and Spike Lee needs to shut his mouth. In the older films that dealt with racism when a white man said the word nigger it was truly shocking whereas here the reality is brought home and it is clear to see why nigger has become a part of the American lexicon. The word is nothing to marvel at  for the people who are offended are those who believe that we should move beyond our history. There are other terms like Big Daddy, Southern hospitality etc that are part of people’s everyday lives much like the violence. This film serves as a reminder of how Americans have historically used violence to achieve their ends and a classic example is slavery. These slave masters and their henchmen used violence as a matter of fact to keep the slaves in order. The recent shootings in Connecticut have nothing to do with gun control but the historical use of violence in America to subdue people since it is the only way to keep in check democracy gone wild. The slave era was one of tyranny and oppression. In the past it was a matter of fact whereas in 2012 a little man decides to use violence to make a point and bestow his judgment on people in a grand lordly fashion. This film will unsettle the petty bourgeois groups that spike lee belongs to because it is supposed to. It is a period in America now where they are trying to trumpet democracy while using military conflict to subdue the rest of the world. Like all great empires America has not been able to escape the use of force as a means of imposition. There is no democracy in American foreign affairs; it is a fantastic illusion given credence by bloated personalities such as Barack Obama. This film highlights expertly that throughout the progress of America violence is instrumental in degrading the oppressed classes of America. Spike Lee should know better because he seems to hope that slavery must be emotionalized and dramatized and make people teary eyed but that is not what makes us cry in the real world when we speak of these horrors; we have to be shocked before we can cry. When Schultz winces every time he recalls the dogs that fed on the flesh of the runaway slave featured in this film it is a reminder for us all. Django tells Candie that Schultz is just not used to the brutality in America that is all.

This film has all the beautiful scenery of other westerns but the violence is the grounding element here.

The soundtrack is superb.

Negatives

The primary negative is that some of the humorous moments are based on caricatures such as the militia that acted as a precursor to the ku Klux klan. It does not really stick. The violence can be a bit too bloody particularly in the shootouts. It oftentimes borders on the absurd.

Tarantino is not seeking to dramatize slavery in anyway and so he seeks to shock you at every turn in order to make the film stick as it progresses. It serves its purpose however because the story is well told and everything becomes a matter of fact and you realize that this is the world they live in.

There are some tongue in cheek moments where the actors wink at the camera and bring their real live selves into play. The final shot with Jamie foxx and his horse is similar to the actors of the theatre that give thanks for the attendance by the audience. Tarantino cameo as a Australian man did not really work as he gets blown away literally. It could have been a bit more grounded but who am I to complain. You get the sense that it is a spaghetti western in the form of pop art and so as it is not based on fact why worry about a cameo here and there and a tune by Rick Ross that actually works this time around in capturing the mood of the wild west.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) ***½ /5: This is a solid film but not definitive and it remains to be seen whether or not it will suffer for riding high on the many fantastic elements for a three part series.

This story about the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, who set off a chain of events that were to culminate in the Lord of the Rings saga is a solid film although there are some misgivings. There are many complaints about the director, Peter Jackson, manipulating a simple children’s story and adapting it as a three part epic as was done with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03), which is truly one of the first great set of films released in the first decade of the 21^st century. After watching the film I found it hard to disagree with the approach taken by Jackson because he explained everything that is necessary for the story as a whole. On the other hand the film does seem to stretch itself thin by trying to offer climax after climax which is not necessary for the story itself which is a simple tale at its core however in the telling of the story you can understand why it is good to have the many elements of the story developed so as to envelop you in the world as it is experienced by Bilbo Baggins. One feature that was not developed by the critics which would serve to support Jackson’s approach is the actual contrast between The Hobbit and The LOTR trilogy which includes the degree of fantasy incorporated into the narrative. In the LOTR the experience of the characters was one of decay and decline with the hope for a new rebirth and the fantastic elements were few and far between or were mere relics relegated to the history of the Middle Earth. This is why it was quite symbolic for many because most of the fantastic elements were grounded in some quaint medieval reality particularly as it concerned the world of man. By the end of the LOTR it seemed as if the great fantastic ride was over and the world of Tolkien was about to enter a period of idyllic realism as the fantastic elements retreated into the background. This is not the case in this current release The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey where the fantastic elements are very much alive for there is even the dragon Smaug which took over the kingdom of Erebor whereas in the LOTR trilogy it would be said that a dragon would not have been seen in Middle Earth for many years. Trolls actually speak in this current release whereas in the LOTR they were mere images of stone. In this current release we see stone giants clashing amidst a thunderstorm whereas that would seem completely out of place in the LOTR trilogy. What came as a genuine surprise in the LOTR trilogy is a matter of fact in this first installment of The Hobbit and so contrary to some opinions Jackson does have a lot of material to work with from the point of view of fantastical images on screen. This film seems more fantastic in terms of the imaginative elements than the LOTR trilogy hence why Jackson probably felt that the same approach of creating a trilogy could be taken with the children’s book The Hobbit which is not an actual three part series as the LOTR books written by Tolkien. I have read the book and Tolkien did cram a lot of material into that small book because not only is Smaug a threat but the goblins which will clash with elves and dwarves in the war of five armies. The defeat of the goblins will see them vanquished from the north forever hence why in the LOTR they appear as relics of an illustrious past. The approach taken by Jackson seems to be one where he develops the story in a unhurried fashion which is in contrast to the approach taken by Tolkien who did not elaborate on many things but merely mentioned them. It is a single book and so the question remains: Did this children’s book deserve to be made into a trilogy with each film running close to 3 hours? This debate will be resolved when the next installment is released. The one worrying sign is that certain parts of the story do not deserve to be the basis of a climax and does not seem to mesh with the overall objective of the group of companions to reclaim the Kingdom of Erebor.  The best moments involve the distinct character of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins who is at odds with his dwarf companions who do not feel that he is fit for adventure. Gandalf however has faith in his choice of making Bilbo the 14^th companion for the journey. It safe to say that this film will not set the world alight as did The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring when it debuted in 2001.

The film is basically about the tale of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who is swept along, unexpectedly, into an adventure with his 13 dwarf companions and the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian Mckellen) to reclaim the kingdom of  erebor from the Dragon Smaug that took control of the hoard of gold mined from that wealthy dwarf kingdom.

Positives

The visuals are top notch in this film enhanced by the 3D factor. The scale of the film seems much more grandiose in certain parts particularly the flight of the eagles who rescue the dwarves from a certain dilemma. The visuals enhance the fantasy that is on display and the film does seem brighter and more alive than the LOTR as a result. The tone of the LOTR was much more somber and realistic and certainly contrasts with the hobbit where things of lore and myth actually exist. The more fantastic element makes the mood more upbeat even when you encounter Gollum or the dwarves mourn for a home to call their own. It all remains upbeat even when the orcs and goblins are on the hunt. Those elements are merely to give the story some momentum.

I believe that Jackson knows what he is doing in making this film a three part series.So far it does not seem as if it has fallen flat on its face; only in a few parts because this story was not necessarily meant to be apocalyptic but a mere story of simple adventure. Regardless of what people say this is not a bad film and so it cannot be rated as such.  There is nothing apocalyptic in it. There is a suitable contrast between the wandering dwarves and the more homely hobbit Bilbo Baggins. The film truly captures how Bilbo is swept up in his journey with even a touch of history regarding one of his ancestors, a Took, who could ride a horse and aided in defeating a goblin king and his army. It seems as if Bilbo has the goods in his blood to be a hero. Gandalf makes it clear that Bilbo of all people should not be so domesticated etc. It is the tide of history that sweeps him into this adventure because he sets off a chain of events that will culminate in the LOTR saga although it would not seem that way for the present as the adventure is merely a simple one. The film stays true to this and gives weight to the light hearted moments as well as the somber ones. We see talking trolls, clashing stone giants, a grotesque goblin king and his followers, Gollum, a white orc with a vendetta against Thorin who is the nominal leader of the dwarf pack having descended from his grandfather Thrain who lost the kingdom to the dragon; there are even elves on the hunt as well as a wizard not yet seen in this universe Radagast the brown who is the lowest wizard in the hierarchy of wizardry it seems and has a chariot driven by rabbits. There is a lot of quirky fantasy here but the main issue here is the finding of the ring of power which is the grounding element as well as the reawakening of the wraiths that were to torment the fellowship in the LOTR. There is no trace of the race of men in this film and so the fantastic elements abound and there is not much to relate to here from a realistic perspective. Elves, Dwarves, trolls, wizards, ghosts, goblins, large wolves and hobbits; oh yes the eagles are no surprise here and are an active part of the action.  The fantasy here is truly at the level of a fairytale where nature comes alive.

The best dramatic moments, however, remain when Bilbo has to justify his worth to the wandering party of dwarves, particularly the leader Thorin. The nature of the hobbit comes alive in these moments particularly when he states that he is no hero and is constantly referred to as the thief or burglar.

As a fantasy film it is leagues ahead of twilight and is much better than the latest Harry Potter film. The standard of this film exceeds most of the fantasy films released in previous years. It is measured only by the LOTR trilogy.

Negatives

The primary negative is the denouement in this film.  It is not necessarily clear whether or not some of the moments that led up to the finale were necessarily elements worthy of a climax in such dramatized fashion. It was really just a minor episode in the book however Jackson tries to give it weight by bogging us down with the history between the white orc and thorin. When the two confront each other it is melodramatic and hardly effective. This climax would have made it seem as if the film is drawn out because it never deserved such a dramatic climax particularly based on how it is presented.  In the Fellowship of the Ring there was the breaking of the fellowship; in the Two Towers there was the defeat of Saruman and in the Return of the King there was the return of the King. In the LOTR these climaxes made it necessary to have a trilogy. It is not so in the case in The Hobbit particularly as it is a simple adventure and most of the episodes, while magical, do not stir you in such a way to make it deserving of this farcical dramatic spectacle. It is pure fantasy that is all; it is not destined to make profound statements  apart from the fact that evil is lurking..

It will have to be seen how the three part arc will play out and so I do not want to make an outright call on the whole franchise. It remains to be seen however comparisons with the LOTR will be rife because it is set up in such a fashion although the events themselves are hardly worthy of such an epic treatment. The film soars high on grand fantasy which renders it almost empty and this is in contrast to the LOTR which emphasized the doom of man and the grand struggle between so called good and evil.  This may be its downfall but one cannot tell but so far it seems that Jackson is milking the many elements of fantasy present in this film with the hope that this will carry the interest of moviegoers for the next three years. This film is certainly not in the league of the LOTR trilogy because those films were documenting the end of an era, literally. It was an epochal sort of film series. The only defense that Jackson has is that the story of the hobbit does take place within the space of a year and so adding weight to that experience does make sense although the elements involved are merely fantastic without being definitive and seems to invite a more pictorial sort of presentation as opposed to a definitive one. When Bilbo sees wonderous sights then we too are to be held in awe and there are many to behold. Is this really definitive, this tide of fantasy? There is no doubt that many will take pleasure in the elements of fantasy and the references to the LOTR but is it not just eye candy and are 3 years of films worth it? This will be seen after the dragon is defeated.

This trilogy will not be as definitive as the LOTR but it will have its admirers.

The idea that doomsday events are supposed to occur at the end of 2012, according to the Mayan Calendar, is rubbish

This is a brief statement claiming that the doomsday events that are to occur at the end of 2012, according to the Mayan calendar, is a load of rubbish. This prophecy belongs on the refuse heap where can be found all the other failed religious prophecies of the past. This prophecy is typical of the wild fanaticism associated with religious doctrine which is an offspring of the warped idealistic philosophy where  thoughts determine the outcome of concrete determinations. In this case the basis for this thought is a a prophecy. The destruction of the world should only take into account the destruction of the world of man's material circumstances associated with the movements of society and the class struggle. This is typical of humans that see destruction of the world through their eyes only without taking into account the material world and what is actually occurring. The real material value is the cash cow provided by this prophecy and so tourists will now visit mayan sites with the hopes to come to some understanding about its prophecy. This mass form of propaganda by the petty bourgeois groups is pathetic and disturbing as it aids in the convolution of societal perceptions which have no grounding in the material forces that we are governed by. Is there really a planet heading towards us? No, because it is a fantastical ideal that has no basis in what is actually going on in the material world around us. If this was so the planet on a crash course would have been reported already by the various space centres. Melancholia (2011) released last year hoped to elaborate on this prophecy and the executives should have released the film this year. The film 2012 also should have been released this year so as to cash in on this great fantasy ride that is available for a relatively small cost.

Lastly this prophecy is testament to the death of a truly ancient Mayan civilization. The prophets that created this malicious falsehood existed at a time when the empire itself was in its heyday. Where is that civilization today? In ruins. The people who made the claims are dead and gone so why put forward this false propaganda in order to cash in on a obsolete civilization. The Mayan civilization was governed heavily by religion, see Apocalypto directed by Mel Gibson, and so this prophecy is testament to the failure of idealism. The Mayan civilization was swept aside by the material forces associated with the rampaging conquistadors of the Spanish empire who exploited the territory in the search of gold. The material forces undermined this civilization in an ignominious fashion. The art of Film itself has played its role in this propaganda machinery because this is testament to the fantasy imbued in human civilization which is the source for our tragedy. It is because of these fantasies that we believe in the massive accumulation of riches etc. This is probably why the prophecy still has some clout in today's world as it preys on the fears of those religious minded individuals that collapse on their selves time and time again. They continue to insist on believing that that prophecy, which is an offspring of the mind, actually has bearing on reality.  The most it can do is exploit our fears which in turn compels people to do foolish things. SELL IT ALL.

The mayan civilization is now obsolete and as they envisioned that the world would end in 2012 it is testament to the failure of idealism as a philosophy. The Mayan civilization ended long before that and I am sure they saw themselves lasting longer than they did if not for the rampaging mercantile spaniards that destroyed their culture. Their culture in the form of ruins now stands as a great source of exploitation by the petty bourgeois clan that hope to milk the cash cow and create some excitement within the various societies around the world so as to distract from the important matters at hand. 

Life of Pi ****/5: A visual feast that is not as profound as it hopes to be

Life of Pi is one of the year’s best films and is certainly one of the most visually captivating films ever made. It is superior to Avatar (2009) because most of the magic comes from the basis of our own life experiences and so it does not seem trite and unforgiving in its calculation to manipulate and distort. With that said the moral basis of the film may or may not be profound in its delineation of Pi’s fantastic story. The story is well told regardless of its fantastic basis and the conclusions arrived at by the protagonists. Whether you disagree or agree with the conclusion Pi’s story is one he is supposed to have experienced and so who are we to judge. Pi’s story is said to make you aware of god’s existence in some shape or form and at times I thought the film would become preachy but it never went that far because religion is central to Pi’s upbringing and one can say that his experience as a shipwrecked sailor is almost fatalistic. This is the primary weakness of the film: its grounding in idealism. It veers towards the nonsensical as a result, at times, or one could say the profound. The film is at its best when it is rooted in the Indian society and Pi’s upbringing but as it progresses one could say that it could have been more definitive simply because it ends in a static fashion. It almost compromises its beliefs by limiting his story to the episode at sea. This is so because one would have liked to see progression into the distant unknown and this is hinted at in the final shot but I would have loved to see it reflected primarily in the life of Pi himself. The issue with this however is that it would probably become too fantastic however this would have made us truly discover god but instead we are left with abstract images that do not reveal much or they might reveal a great much because of the film’s visual splendor. The way I am writing this film makes it seem as if I am not sure what to make of the film but that is not the case because the visual splendor of the film is so striking that one may choose to see it as profound naturalism or simply an appendage that merely serves to reveal the emptiness of the film particularly the final half.  I conclude that the film attempts to make profound statements but it is not conclusive because the writers themselves do not have the answers and so they envelop the film in such mystery that it probably will not be deciphered and will only be revealed in the actions of the characters themselves. The main thing I do agree with in the telling of Pi’s story is the struggle of letting go during our life’s journey in order to make true discoveries about the life we live. I have lived it myself and I can identify with this although my life itself is not as profound as Pi’s. It is an element of most people’s lives as a matter of fact (a moment where the individual’s experience becomes the universal). The degree of fantastic elements we encounter is relative however that is why we have stories. In order to make sense of the world you live in you have to undergo some measure of upheaval. Order devolves into chaos and in that chaos you come to certain determinations about life and find a new order where you make a break with the previous order or how you lived life prior to the upheaval. This is the natural cycle of mankind and the only constant is the life force or the fact that we are alive. All great films carry this message and Life of Pi is no different the only difference is that it explicitly states that the story allows you to discover god in all his many manifestations. This story is similar in some respects to the idealist dialectic although I am more inclined to the materialist dialectic whereby the society of man undergoes its many upheavals on the basis of the class struggle with the outcome that one may encounter a classless society and then the notion of equal rights and justice will come to pass.  The idealist way out has emerged as a composite of very particularistic endeavors where god comes into people’s lives in some way or form after we have encountered the negative and emerged with a new positive but only on the basis of how the world is interpreted by that individual. The only agreement the idealists and I share is that Life is constant and our perceptions do change over time based on upheavals  on the basis of what we thought we knew so as to emerge with a new form of knowledge. The basis for change on my part is societal change or a change in the values held dear by society any other change is strictly due to the processes of nature which is what Pi encounters in his story.

Life of Pi stars Suraj Sharma as Pi (Irfan Khan portrays the older Pi but with less screen time) who on a trip on a ship, with his family, to Canada where he will begin a new life he emerges as the lone survivor after the ship is sunk by a storm in the Pacific. His only companions on the life boat are animals that once belonged to his father’s zoo: a hyena, a lame zebra, a orangutan, a rat and, lastly, a tiger. In the end it is only Pi and the tiger, Richard Parker that remain and their relationship becomes the basis for Pi’s discoveries about life or the notion about the meaning of life. His answer is limited strictly to nature and echoes an earlier experience he had with the tiger. His father warns him that what you see in the eyes of the animal is reflected back into you. They do not think like we do, according to the father, and so one must not go on thinking that they have souls etc.  Pi and the tiger, now stranded at sea, have come to the realization that they have established a bond but it is a bond that seems to reflect our relationship with god.

Positives

Obviously the most striking element of this film is the visual splendor enhanced by 3D. The splendor of the visual element is tied into the nature of god, the absolute, or life as we know it. It is even better because the image is so clear/ pristine at times particularly a scene in a pool and when Pi, stranded at the sea is in the presence of a sunset.  As stated before the images in this film are superior to Avatar not merely based on the technology used but on the basis of how real most of the images are or the organic nature of the images. It does not ask you to go ‘ooh’ and ‘aah’ when you see a certain image because this is the life we live. It only brings these images to life  in a more strident fashion. The images are organic because it is tied into nature which is the world man seems to have divorced himself from apart from seeing it as a means of mass exploitation to artificially benefit the so called human race although we are no further from nature as we were 2,000 years ago. We are yet to go through the dramatic shifts in our physicality that nature has seen over its almost limitless time span by our own conception. The natural world as we know it is only the world that we know and the ideas we have created about it. We cannot fathom it and we can only do this through exploiting it for our own use. The images in this film, for instance, about life under the sea are not necessarily a marvel because it is already there this is how it is. The filmmakers it seems could not remove themselves from the temptation to make the eye candy befuddle some. I probably would have been bamboozled by this hyper naturalism if I had not watched an enormous amount of documentary material about life on the ocean floor where the natural lights flicker in the darkest recesses of the ocean where no light can penetrate. The presentation in this film is not entirely accurate and exaggerates the look but there is an underlying reality. This natural world therefore should not evoke more than it does for if it evokes anything it highlights how out of touch we really are with it all.

The majesty of the surroundings is only paralleled by Pi’s isolation as an individual. His story is well told by Ang Lee and co. and as I have not read the book I cannot compare but it is clear that from the viewpoint of a filmgoer who has not read the book I did not feel as if anything was missing in the sequences that were not previously explained. It is clear from the story that the character of Pi was meant to stand out. We see this with the attention he gets from his full last name which sounds a lot like pissing. We also get a glimpse into his quest for god which seems to have started since he was quite young. We see Pi engage with the major religions that he encountered while growing up in India; Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.  He seems to have synthesized all three while taking from each that which suits him at a particular moment in his daily routine. We see this contrast with his father who believes in reason and who brings him down to reality with a poignant scene involving the tiger, Richard Parker.  When he has to leave India for Canada and becomes embroiled in stormy events and is then stranded at sea we understand that everything was meant to reflect Pi’s isolation or his distinctness as an individual. It might seem convenient that he alone of all the ship’s crew and passengers should survive however one should see it coming particularly those that are distinctive in life that always seem to be out there on their own. They simply do not fit well with the rest and this distinct quality always lays the groundwork for the fantastic stories that the world seems to enjoy. Ordinary people are so called because they simply do not possess a distinctive quality that will make them standout against the crowd and their attitude seems to be one of compliance and subservience to the world they know and enjoy; the ordinary person will never challenge the system or allow him or herself to be challenged by it they will merely comply with what is required to be done so that they can be either the exploiter or the exploited. This is what the film does well it makes the life of Pi distinctive and therefore worth telling on its own and how fantastic is it that he is stranded along with a tiger.

 The fact that the story of the film stood rooted in the pacific or throughout Asia is very significant. It is clear that an older Pi has moved to Canada and recounts his tale to a white western man who is startled and then ends up transcribing it to his fellow readers of the west who become bamboozled by the mystic nature of the east and seek to create a fantasy package around it. This does not change the fact that the important part takes place in the East. This film by Ang Lee and others released over years from Asia clearly reveals that there is an abundance of material for artists to exploit and the stories are just as vibrant as those in the West although the stories from the West have assumed a petty bourgeois/middle class stance in their portrayal.  It is no surprise therefore that when Pi lands in the west he is rendered ordinary and trite, a mere comic that has a good story to tell. There were times when stories from the West were this vibrant and so the story in Life of Pi reminded me of certain episodes of a Forrest Gump particularly the character, Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinise), who questioned the belief in god who he encountered, just like Pi, in a storm and all was revealed. 

 I agreed with the concept of the life force and letting go as we progress.

The final shot of the film is a powerful one.

Negatives

It is not clear whether this film is profound or merely empty at its core for even the visual splendor cannot mask the mere simplicity at the film’s core. This simplicity would not have been a problem if it was not beaten into our heads that this story was about discovering god in nature. If it was a story without the moral element then the images would not have been so strident because one therefore keeps hoping to discover some magic in nature that will reveal god somehow. This does not occur in our daily lives only some exaggerated visual images that do not reveal much and reveal that at its core nature is not amazed by its own splendor it is us humans that ascribe all sort of fantastic elements and string them up as art and so exaggerate its premise. There is an episode where Pi encounters a mysterious island that not many have seen before because there is clue that someone did reside there. If this island really does not exist then what was the point of bringing it to our attention and this is where the artist feels he can escape; he will say that Pi experienced it so who are we to judge however I am speaking of the world we live in and it is strange that no one has been able to report about such an island. The film tries to hint that the existence of such an island is possible like Skull Island from King Kong (1933&2005). If the island does not exist then the story is baseless and satellite images should be able to determine whether or not it does and so the great story of Pi is truly a fantasy with no inherent base but the imagination. This is why towards the end of the film the absence of any true revelations or any profound insights makes the experience seem interesting but pointless. The scene where he tries to ascribe the character of the animals to human beings rings hollow.  It is clear that the writers, all along, sought to make this comparison between the nature of animals and humans. Pi reveals himself as the tiger by saying that he was reflected in him. The tiger existed independently and so how could he call himself the tiger. If he tamed the tiger then why did it just desert Pi; even great carnivores such as the tiger can be tamed. I suppose the question why he deserted Pi? is intended to be a great mystery. If Pi did succeed in taming him he would have responded affectionately although the attachment between the two is made clear in a poignant scene near the end. It is a powerful scene and one wishes that the others had the same impact.  

I had a problem with the life of Pi after this great episode in his life. He settled down and became static or an ordinary man. The weight of that story at sea does not seem to progress further and it becomes stagnant and so his life, although not complete, must have come to an end when he returned to human civilization. The life of Pi does not seem complete and one would have wished that his fantastic story encompassed his life much like in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2010). His life ends up like any petty bourgeois and does not seem truly definitive apart from the shipwreck and existing side by side with a tiger. After this story he has no other definitive moments to make his life interesting.

I never saw god in this film and the story brought me no closer to him. It was basically a story about the relationship between Pi and a tiger that survived a shipwreck. On this level the film works not as some mysterious divine watch. The visuals cannot convey god just like that; showing nature in its pure form does not reveal god anywhere it only reveals nature and its various cycles. This superficiality is what will make you question whether or not there is a divine element. Some light piercing through the clouds during a storm is not necessarily god/divine but the light of the sun; nothing more. Unless Ang Lee and co. were prepared to reveal god to us then all these images certainly will not do it. This is the eternal curse of the idealists that are not bound by the material world because they love to speak of fantastic things but cannot demonstrate them in the real world.

Only time will tell whether the film is as profound as it hopes to be.

Lincoln (2012) ****/5: Good film but sentiment masks the cynicism at the core of the political milieu during the civil war.

Lincoln is a good film but hardly great even if it goes down as the standard bearer for Lincoln films to come. Daniel Day Lewis, who plays Abraham Lincoln, will probably win the Oscar for his performance since he immerses himself in the role as usual. This is an improvement over Spielberg’s previous effort, War Horse (2011), however the maudlin sentiment in this, his latest , film masks the hidden political cynicism at its core. The cinematography and Art direction are superb as well as the make up for Daniel Day Lewis who plays Lincoln. There are times where lighting in a dark room casts a shadow on the man thereby illuminating the essence of the Lincoln legend. These are the strongest moments of the film particularly as Lincoln's essence is imprinted everywhere like an engraved image; a fantastic abstract devoid of any flaws; the legend that has swayed the USA since time immemorial. He champions the abolition of slavery although the filmmakers masked the fact that he was paving the way  for wage slavery another rabid system of mass exploitation by the capitalist class. Lincoln promised freedom but even he with all his rhetoric and political dogma must have been cognizant of the illusion of freedom. This is what has limited the film significantly. Black people were granted freedom but they subsisted in penury and were largely considered the wretched of the earth in America; even to this day as the majority of that ethnic group languishes on the fringes of bourgeois society. This is what is called freedom hence why Lincoln as a republican emerged in a period when capital was destined to take sway in America. He was the representative of capital abolishing the ties to the outdated mode of production called slavery with its low levels of productivity. The Southern states have benefited tremendously as we see the vast plains devoted to agricultural production today on the basis of wage labour which is another form of slavery to the ruling class. The republican party are the true representatives of capitalism in America and so abolishing the mode of slave production was in their best interest so as to fully exploit the ‘free’labour of the blacks by generating surplus value/unpaid labour time which is calculated on the basis of the capital advanced to be calculated as profit. Slavery was an outdated mode of production because investments in the North were awaiting the opportunity to fully exploit the resources of the land. Slavery was more of a hindrance because it implies low levels of productivity, poverty and low levels of investment. Lincoln unified the country by waging the American civil war, 1861-65, and this unification would pave the way for investment by capital. In the development of bourgeois society therefore Lincoln is not unique for prior to the advancement of this class its rule must be consolidated that is the government would largely represent its interests. This happened with the unification of Germany under Bismarck, it also happened with the unification of Italy; it happened during the French and English Revolutions. Lincoln is no champion of virtue for he really is the champion of freedom in the strict sense of capitalist production only. His civil war is a classic example of how capital shatters barriers in favour of its class. The reconstruction period that followed the civil war is testament to this fact when the investors ploughed through the south and stifled the southerners with taxation and credit. Lincoln is a hero within the strict sense of capitalist production hence why his legend is so paramount in the American psyche. He championed the virtue of capitalism like no other president before him. He unified the country in such a way that it was able to begin on the path of mass exploitation of wage labour which characterizes America. The greatness of Lincoln is manifest in America’s preeminent role as the propagator of capitalist virtues and the great crises that go along with it. The 1% vs. the 99% is a classic example of the freedom promised by Lincoln. His protégé, Barack Obama, is also grappling with this freedom by encouraging big government as he indulges in political rhetoric and dogmas that can only be associated with the penchant illusions of an idealist.

This film ignores all these issues while focusing solely on the moral principles about whether all men are created equal.

 It is a good film when it documents the legal process of getting the 13^th amendment passed. This amendment would abolish slavery for good and the legal dilemma was that Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation Act during the civil war as a means of confiscating the property of the confederate states which would include the slaves themselves. Lincoln is also racing against time because he arranged for a delegation of the leaders of the confederate states to speak of terms of peace in Virginia when in fact he delays them so as to discuss terms of surrender with the hope that he can get the bill passed by January 31 and then proceed to win the war which would see America conquered by the bourgeois class. This film deals specifically on the passage of the 13^th amendment in the House of the representatives and the political subterfuge necessary for this to occur. The republicans control the House but in order to get the two thirds majority they would have to convince at least 20 democrats to support the bill along with some abstentions.

What’s good about this film?

The performance of Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, the cinematography and art direction and the presentation of the political divide between Democrats and Republicans are the best elements of the film.

Daniel Day Lewis clearly immerses himself in the role and you clearly feel at times that you are in the presence of Abraham Lincoln although the ideological reasons of the film are clear as it is testament to the decline of America today as they seek to elevate this heroic image of a dead president. The cinematography is also instrumental to the Lincoln characterization particularly the use of silhouettes and faint lighting which serve to ground him in a particular milieu. There are also moments when the aura of Lincoln rubs off onto those who were in awe of his celebrity status. It would have been good to see some shots of Lincoln on the rise and the prejudice he had to endure. This is made clear in a conversation between Mrs. Lincoln (Sally Fields) and a prominent member of the republican party, Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) at a gala at the white house regarding the stature of Lincoln amongst the people.  His popularity amongst the people is not presented in this film, apart from some conversations with soldiers but it would have added some panache to the film apart from strictly seeking to paint a picture of Lincoln amongst the shadows or as some abstract representing American liberty. A portrayal of Lincoln as a man of people would have been appreciated because it would have been testament to his legend among the people.

The portrayal of the political milieu of the time is well done and we are presented with the timeless divide between republicans and democrats. The irony here being that the republicans represent change and the democrats represent regression and stagnation. The democrats in this film would have been livid if they saw Obama presented as the leading candidate of their party for the Presidency. There is also an accurate portrayal of Lincoln’s political maneuvering in order to terminate slavery in America once and for all. One of the most entertaining moments of the movie is the process taken to find 20 democrats to support the 13^th amendment. This is done on behalf of Lincoln by rogues of the party or those of the campaign team that are asked to canvass on behalf of Lincoln. When these individuals identify those democrats that they wish to target, in order to seek the 20 votes in the House, it is the most riveting aspect of the movie as we witness the difficulty in reaching across the aisle. It shows that for all of Lincoln’s greatness he had a team behind him particularly his Secretary of State. This political element does seem calculating however and it is hardly a genuine process. This art of politics therefore does not seem like an idealistic profession hence why they should have addressed the material mode of production that Lincoln was pushing to replace slavery in the confederate states. This is alluded to only once during a discussion between Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy lee Jones) where they refer to the reconstruction that was to take place. Lincoln however puts it off and the only other reference is when someone tells him that he will have to lead them out of slavery i.e. he would be the leader of a unified United States of America. The debates in the house are also interesting and do put into perspective how the two parties differed along ideological lines with regards to the abolition of slavery.  The Democrats were in favour of a return to slavery even after the proclamation of the emancipation act. The republicans push for the end of slavery is not made clear for some it is clearly not humanitarian or moralistic but is clearly along the lines of the material mode of production called capitalism which they support vociferously as a party. Even Lincoln is vague in his approach and his stories only serve to obfuscate the issue rather than have it pointedly addressed. When they celebrate the passage of the 13^th amendment it is certainly not a moral victory for all as it is for some because they are rejoicing the amount of cheap labour they will now be able to exploit. We now see how they are perceived today as a party. 

The Art direction and make up is quite good because it is a period piece. The lighting is quite good for it serves to portray Lincoln as an engraved image throughout. All his gestures are meant to lend weight to the character within his time; he certainly died as a hero.

What’s bad about this film?

The main issue in this film is the maudlin sentiment and the sanitized portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is characteristically portrayed as a leader burdened by doing what he is supposed to do. He is even burdened by his wife who pesters him about a son that died in the war and another, Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who intends to join the army. This element is neither here nor there and becomes a bore.  The great burdens he carries takes the life out of the film and his constant amusements with the telling of fables are mere exercises in cheap entertainment which are good for the time in which Lincoln resided but not for a 21^st century audience. It bogs the film down in tedious unimaginative material.  Focus is lost when Lincoln starts telling his stories. It would not have been bad if he told one or two but he tells several. It is all vague because people still have to ask what was meant. He parades like a layman with all the lordly wisdom to hold sway over his followers even though the wisdom was merely contrived political rhetoric with no substantial elements apart from the warped idealism at its core. I was not bamboozled by this man who is simply another politician and the filmmakers seem to spend too much time trying to depress the mood by portraying him as a man that carried this great burden. The character becomes so mired in shadow that there are times when you have to wonder what was so amazing about him apart from the fact that he issues orders and expects people to follow them blindly. He is a typical politician that says do this and do that but cannot do the work that is required. The skills of delegation are all he has and only once is his knowledge of the law brought forward as a means to examine the 13^th amendment. He himself does not even address the people about the amendment and leaves it to political wrangling to get the job done. This emphasis on politics should have brought to the fore the bourgeois character of the politics which is sorely absent and only serves to sanitize the portrayal of Lincoln. Let us be clear Lincoln was a petty bourgeois and he championed the rights of the bourgeois class and his training in the law was on the basis of a bourgeois interpretation of the law.  When Lincoln promises freedom he promises bourgeois freedom, that is domination by the bourgeois class and the workers that are free to sell their labour power to the few that control the means of production. The freedom to have the workers be exploited is the freedom that Lincoln espouses hence why the freedom of blacks saw them become simpering yes men and believers in a hollow deranged American dream about salvation through money (the bourgeois creed). The blacks after they became free subsisted in inhuman poverty because they represented the surplus population that depressed the wage bill i.e. they would only be able to find the most inhumane jobs. A job as a janitor was once glorified by the black community. This is the freedom that Lincoln speaks of and it is to the film’s credit that they briefly addressed the issue of equality with women. This freedom to sell your labour power is all that you have in bourgeois society and when you cannot sell it you end up deranged by illusions or you become one of the bourgeois class.  The film fails to address and to put on the table the real reason why the republicans want to free the blacks because even Lincoln shamelessly reveals in the film that he declared emancipation so that the blacks would be the confiscated property of the confederate states. He was compromised because he had to wage war to challenge the secession of the confederate states. If he did not do it then someone else would; the material forces of production would have made it a necessity.

The maudlin sentiment therefore reinforces the political rhetoric and dogma that Lincoln represented. On the day of the vote there is a moment when several free blacks enter so as to help sway the situation. This is not geared towards any sentiment it is calculating politics yet it is portrayed as sentimental. It is clearly not a genuine moment. The blacks celebrate but look at the state of free societies today.

Lincoln therefore sacrifices the real causes and motives that would have made the film more definitive in its portrayal. Instead the film portrays a man so burdened that the film seems to suffocate. The pace is slow as a result and the canvassing of democratic votes is a life line in terms of entertainment. The film moves forward in a fatalistic manner and you can basically predict the outcome therefore the only element to be brought forward is less a faithful rendition than a touch of artistic freedom that would bring these issues to the forefront. There are only one or two sparks demonstrated by Lewis in his portrayal since he wishes to portray Lincoln faithfully; because the performance seems to engrave the picture of Lincoln on the mind of the audience there is no sense of any internal mannerisms that made him truly definitive. If Lewis does win the academy award i would not be surprised but I would not be surprised if he does not win because it seems like an easy way to win an oscar by portraying a famous dead president. It would still be good to see Lewis upstaged in favour of an up an coming actor that thrills the world with a vibrant acting performance that seems characteristic of the 21st century. 

The faithful rendition almost makes the film historically accurate although the real reasons for the proclamation of freedom still lay beneath the surface of scheming politicians.