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 The film is an ode to the faded (or fading) British peasantry which has been replaced by large scale capitalist agriculture.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.

Melancholia (2011) ***/5: Good film but the context seems a bit limited in some respects. There is a fine line between the superficial and the profound.

Melancholia is a good film mainly because of some clever moves by the screenwriter and director, Lars Von Trier. These clever or necessary moves elevates the film to some form of art house examination of humanity as opposed to a run of the mill disaster movie which would involve swirling populations. The clever devices in the screenplay come from the isolated rural landscape where a majority of the action takes place as the planet melancholia is on a crash course with the earth. The film is a study of depression and how people of varying personalities cope with impending disaster.  Each individual therefore represents what would be a particular group in the city should an event like this actually occur. This isolationist policy does benefit the vision of the director while simultaneously undermining it. The film does feature some good performances particularly by Kirsten Dunst as Justine however it does seem disjointed and predictable simply because the characters are not clearly drawn. What we see on screen are disconnected episodes; these disconnected episodes are unified by the strong presence of character and the planet.  There does not seem to be a story at the heart of the film apart from the planet which is on a crash course with earth. We see a character like Justine with her mood swings but we never get a sense of her motivations etc. This makes it seem like a superficial study of depression but I have encountered women like her before and so it was quite accurate allowing for moments of excess. As there is not a solid  story at the core of the film, apart from the approaching planet, the film does seem a bit slow and this too is a good and bad element in the film which means that there are certain elements that are never fully reconciled. I understood the intent of the film however as a study of depression and how this malaise affects our responses to certain events by allowing us to grasp the dark side of human interaction and impending disaster. This is why one of the film’s strengths is the contrast between the two sisters featured in this film, Justine and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). This device offers a suitable contrast between the angst ridden depressive, Justine and the more practical and stable Claire whose world slowly crumbles as the planet approaches earth.

These elements in the film are a blessing and a curse for despite its profundity the superficial elements rear their ugly head and make the film seem pretentious. The style is similar to Pan’s Labyrinth however there was a narrative element at the heart of Pan’s Labyrinth that allowed for a suitable cross section of reality and fantasy. This is not balanced suitably here in Melancholia simply because the scope is so limited to the approaching planet which is supposed to be the fantastical element. The film does find a common ground with the quirkiness of the characters that inhabit the world of Claire and Justine.

What’s good about this film?

The realistic elements of the film that contrast with the fantastical elements are fairly well executed by the production team in this film. When the film opens with a range of shots highlighting the fantasy world inhabited by Justine and how this aligns with the approaching planet of melancholia a clear understanding  emerges, as the film progresses, of the mysticism in human nature. We see Justine stare at the stars and how in tune with the universe she is as she seems to be the first person on earth who discerns that something is amiss in the constellation of stars. This is done within the context of her marriage reception with the feeble husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) which opens the film. Her estrangement from the proceedings suggests that she is an extremely melancholy person who comes to understand how superficial all of this ceremony is. What this film does reveal accurately is that one who is extremely melancholy or estranged from humanity is able to discern the true nature of individuals (or their true motives), inanimate objects and animals. Justine does demonstrate this, for instance, throughout the film where she claims to see things as they really are and in one particular scene she confronts and exposes her boss and his corrupt values when he promotes her to art director and then sends an imp of a man to pursue her so that he can discover the tagline for her new poster which is designated for advertisement purposes.  She eventually confronts him by saying he is corrupt as a result of his power hungry nature. Her estrangement allows her to make these insights into human nature which is why she is unable to commit to her husband especially as he is unable to confront her on an emotional level. He tries to kiss ass (‘you never have to say you’re sorry’. Worst thing a man can say to a woman) but this estranges him from her even more because it is superficial and so when he tries to consummate the nuptials by making love she pushes him aside coldly and then proceeds to hump the imp like emissary, sent by her boss to pursue her, on the golf course located on the estate.  We see the influence of her mother and father on her way of thinking and this is not told by relaying any past occurrences but simply by impressing upon the viewer the character of both parents. The father seems altogether more social and likable whereas the mother shares in Justine’s estrangement especially as she does not believe in marriage and ceremony etc. It seems that these two individuals represent some dilemma in her nature and so on different occasions she tries to reach out to one or the other depending on her mood i.e. whether or not she wants to be social or not. Her character has been seen before in Apocalypse Now (1979) with Colonel Kurtz who is completely removed from the hypocrisy inherent in mankind.

Therefore her sanity is questioned by her sister Claire and her husband John (Keifer Sutherland) who sees her estrangement as unnerving. The wedding reception takes place on John’s magnificent estate and it is clear that he and Claire believe in an ordinary lifestyle influenced by material factors. We see this in one particular scene where he makes Justine aware, as she wades listlessly through the house, that a lot of money was spent to make the reception happen. There are also instances when Claire tells Justine that sometimes she hates her.  This is because of Justine’s flighty thoughts that do not correspond with the supposed practical reality although she is trying to channel the energies of the universe etc.  She seems to understand that the planet will indeed collide with the earth despite the scientists, who are represented by the character of John in this film, who claim the contrary: that the planet will miss the earth. The scientists can be wrong sometimes as we observe the tragic fate of john in the latter stages of the film as the planet is clearly on a crash course with earth. This element is well developed and distinguishes it from The Tree of Life (2011) which failed to establish the connection between the domestic situation and the cosmos. This film at least tries to show that the character of Justine due to her estrangement, associated with extreme depression, clearly has some connection with what is going on especially as her condition alienates her from humanity and places her on another plane of existence. One should check out the scene when she observes the approaching planet in the nude with the utmost placidity while Claire panics especially as her material world is about to fall apart.

This is why Von Triers smartly provides a contrast between Justine and Claire. Justine as stated before is more nonchalant about the material world whereas Claire is more concerned about her material existence as she lives on a grand estate married to a rich aristocrat who plays with his telescope a lot. Claire is therefore more caught up in worldly affairs that are determined by material security whereas Justine appears to be more of an idealist that is not caught up in these material trappings. An invading planet would therefore suit Justine quite well. Their two husbands Michael and John also contrast with each other. For a man to love Justine he must be mindlessly in love as is Michael however for a man to love Claire he must be very practical and materialistic or world weary. This is all accurately depicted in this film.

The slow point has notably become a sore point with casual viewers but it is instrumental to the mood of the film as this allows for some form of tension to be built, however tenuous.  The planet approaches slowly and this is in keeping with physics where the approach is measured like the sunset or sunrise despite coming at 60,000 mph (or kmh. can’t recall). The slow approach of the planet allows for enough time to have these personalities collide and unfold and develop their own views towards life: the idealist vs. the materialist. As the planet gets closer the characters show their true selves. Justine was always the most honest one and does not seem to change whereas the others such as Claire and John have to grapple with the fact that their material world is falling apart as the planet approaches. It gives room for the actors to flex their muscles. It is interesting for instance to watch Claire gradually lose faith in her husband’s judgement and for John to lose faith in science.

It was also interesting to see how this film gives in to the predictions re the end of the world (Mayan calendar) in 2012 where a planet will come cascading into the earth resulting in the death of life on earth.

The fact that the story takes place in the countryside allows for these characters to stand out where they would not in the city. In the city for instance a mass of populations would have to be considered and so a character like Claire or Justine would be part of a group as opposed to having their individual traits coming to the fore. Had Von Triers focused on worldwide opinion the film would be no different from Independence Day or an Armageddon. It is clear that had it been located in the city Claire would be absorbed into the group that would generate some form of cultic artistic expression regarding the planet whereas Claire would be one of the ordinary citizens who would try to flee the danger with the hope that they can start again and rebuild.

What’s bad about this film?

The profound elements in this film seem to run parallel with the absurd or superficial elements inherent in the story. These two elements are never reconciled and so it seems that the superficial elements are right behind the profound elements and any lapse in the narrative will force you to confront them. This is because the narrative is disjointed and the context associated with the approaching planet is not clearly defined. There is no context regarding the planet and one may see the film as a profound meditation on depression whereas another will see the film as pretentious and just another disaster movie with dramatic overtones. The characters seem to be isolated from the world as the planet approaches apart from Claire and the internet. (The episode with the internet was not well done; when Claire types in melancholia the first thing that should have come up was news regarding the planet. It is only the definition of melancholia that first appears.) There is absolutely no sense of the outside world and it is difficult to believe that they are so isolated from the world that only their views matter when it comes to the doom of the earth. This is where some people would expect to hear some form of news reports or an address to the nation by the various rulers of the earth. The justification for the use of a planet to explain the end of the world seems pretty shallow and some would feel that it is feeding the superstitious fears associated with the Mayan calendar and other sources who proclaim that the world will end by similar means, as described in this film, in 2012. There is no attempt at explaining how it is that a planet could end up on a crash course with earth. There is not even the postulation of some form of theory and what this means for the end of the world. Has there been any record of such a possibility in the earth’s history? The characters merely accept that the event has occurred. This policy of isolation will not enhance the film in the eyes of some viewers and it will be seen as potential. It is inevitable because it does not seem plausible or realistic. This is why it seems superficial when one contrasts it with the profound element which concerns the reaction of a particular group of individuals to this cataclysmic event.

In the city, also, these characters would be quite insignificant and not so distinctive. It is clear that Justine would reside with the hippies and that Claire would be with the bourgeois class as they bicker amongst themselves about the preservation of their property. The husband would be among the class of astronomers who would be debating the outcome. Other world views would have to be taken into account and this is not done here and so it is not really clear why a character like Justine is so distinctive. Could it be that she was the first one who witnessed the approach of the planet? I am sure there are many idealists like her and I am sure the scientists would have picked up on it. This isolationist policy does not make these characters distinctive but pretty one dimensional and the presentation does not seem realistic and therefore quite excessive. This will be the concern of many viewers. How important are these characters really? It showcases a particular character but how distinctive is this character in the wider sphere of things.

Another instance is the characters themselves who are only defined by their actions as opposed to past occurrences. It is hinted at but never developed. This is why some episodes will seem inexplicable such as when Justine humps the imp like man and so ends her marriage on the same night. It seems obvious to some like me but it will not seem so to others. Von Triers tries to limit the actions of Justine to the marriage  reception  and so it seems limited at times. When the imp like character follows Justine around for instance is that really necessary on a wedding night? And does it not seem lacking in subtlety. Why had not the boss sent the imp on a mission to unearth the tagline in a couple of days? Why make Justine aware of it? Send the imp on a mission to try and get under Justine’s skin and probably lure her into having an affair where she would possibly divulge her secrets to him. It is predictable that she would hump him but it is done so suddenly it seems pointless. Why would a boss act so stupid? Could he really be that greedy? This is why some more scope was needed to such a presentation and so the episode seems superficial. The other instance is with the marriage reception and Justine’s attitude to the world around her. Her husband seems so ineffective and weak that he is unable to coax her into making love. He has no control and so it would have been more fulfilling if we got to see their relationship develop some more. I understand that only a weak man could love Justine and  want to marry her especially since she is so high strung she seems as if she smokes marijuana constantly. She is clearly in her own fantasy world and there is no account of how they function as a couple. He hardly gets frustrated with her condition and rarely tries to reach out to her. It is only when he makes toasts do we get a sense of the relationship.

When Justine has one of her episodes we never know what the motivation is. Is she an out and out depressive character. How does she act within the context of the everyday? Is she always bailed out by her sister? To what extent did the fiasco at the reception affect her? These questions could not be understood since a planet will wipe out everything in a couple of days.

These are some of the issues and obviously I cannot address all.

All in all it is a good art house film but one wonders how significant it really is when the wider context is taken into account.