Monthly Archives: August 2008

Film, Opinion

Che W and political filmmaking

1 Comment

Though there are exceptions, films with inescapable political content are generally kept in the realm of the documentary.  There’s a number of reasons for this, or at least a number of reasons why I think this is.  First and foremost, movies are generally escapist by nature.  Even films that are heavy on realism are escapist.  Something about how the characters are written, portrayed, or how the story is told makes it more than just re-enactments.  Exceptions to this are generally fairly limited.  Unless you’re looking at the collective filmography of Steven Soderberg and Oliver Stone.

This fall presents what could prove to be a very interesting compare/contrast in political film-making.  By the numbers, it looks less interesting though.  On September 9th, Steven Soderberg’s 268 minute, all-spanish epic Che (presented in two parts; The Argentine and Guerrilla for those without iron bladders or attention spans) gets it’s North American premiere (it officially premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May) at the Toronto International Film Festival.  And then on October 17th, Oliver Stone’s W is set to be released, mere months after shooting began this May.  Stone promises it to be similar in tone to The Queen (which is a remarkable film in nearly every respect, but particularly it’s reverence), but based on promotional material, appears to look quite irreverent.  Here’s some more numbers for you:  W will be released roughly 3 months before George W. Bush leaves office; Che was released 41 years after Che Guevara’s death.

Biopics are old hat to both Soderberg and Stone though.  Soderberg directed Julia Roberts to an Academy Award in Erin Brokovich, and W will be Stone’s sixth biopic, as well as his second on a President of the United States.  Politically-themed films are also familiar territory for both.  Soderberg’s touched on political issues in Traffic, which explored nearly every aspect of the war on drugs over a 147-minute running time.  His HBO series K-Street, co-produced with George Clooney, explored the political landscape leading up to the 2004 Election.  As for Stone’s political films, it might be easier to just list them:

  • Salvador – dealt with the El Salvador civil war and US involvement therein
  • Platoon – dealt with the Vietnam war, won Best Picture in 1986
  • Wall Street – one character’s philosophy is “greed is good”.  You do the math
  • Talk Radio – about a controversial radio host
  • Born on the Fourth of July – biopic about maimed Vietnam Veteran Ron Kovic
  • JFK – arguably Stone’s most controversial work, famously explored conspiracy theories about John F. Kennedy’s assassination
  • Heaven & Earth – another Vietnam war centric film, this time from the perspective of a young woman caught in the crossfire
  • Natural Born Killers – dealing with media reaction to violent crime.  The film arguably inspired copycat crimes, despite it being intended as a criticism of the media more than a glorification of violence.  Again, arguably Stone’s most controversial work
  • Nixon – take a wild guess

Interestingly, World Trade Center his biopic about two fallen NYFD workers on 9/11 had little to no political content and was praised for it’s reverence.  In short, it would be more surprising if Oliver Stone didn’t make a movie about George W. Bush.  The surprising, and frankly disappointing thing about W is how soon it’s come to pass.  Too soon.

That’s a major problem with Stone’s effort, something that just can’t be avoided.  It also undermines his declared intentions.  It’s incredibly difficult to properly explore the legacy of a major political figure on film.  Stone’s own Nixon was made after Richard Nixon’s death in 1994, and over 20 years after Nixon resigned the presidency.  Long enough after the fact to properly assess his legacy?  I’d say so.  Steven Soderberg’s Che also comes fairly long after the events it depicts.  It even comes around a decade after the American commercialization of Che Guevera, largely thanks to Rage Against The Machine.  Che Guevera has come a long way since the overthrow of Cuba’s regime in the 1950’s.  Having spent some time in Latin America, it goes without saying that Che is beyond iconic at this point.  Soderberg is wise to take four hours to tell his story, as is Hollywood for leaving previous perspectives on Guevara to documentary filmmakers.

The main thing about W that bothers me is that it’s release comes not just before Bush has retired from public life, but before he’s even retired from the executive office.  Quite frankly, any attempt to be reverent is damaged by this.  While The Queen was released at a time when both Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth II were both in power (Blair would resign his post shortly after), the events it details happened nearly a decade beforehand, and the action was confined to roughly a week in history.  That tragic chapter of British history has closed.  Bush’s story as president, let alone as public figure, remain unfinished.  Stone’s film, (which as I understand, goes as far into his presidency as the invasion of Iraq) tells an incomplete story no matter how you slice it.

Since I haven’t seen either film, my criticism of W shouldn’t be taken as anything other than theoretical.  As easy as it might be to dismiss Oliver Stone as a zeitgeist chaser and opinion-peddler, it’s difficult to dismiss him as a filmmaker.  He’s earned two Best Director Oscars (that’s two more than Stanley Kubrick and double Martin Scorcese’s count).  His films have been nominated for Best Picture three times, and won once.  He might be controversial, but a hack?  Absolutely not.  He’s a shit disturber, but he’s an incredible talent.

Likewise, Che might be too overblown for it’s own good.  While I absolutely believe that Che Guevara’s story essentially demands a 4-hour, 8 minute run time, there’s a good chance that Soderberg’s ego will overtake the project, or it’ll be a 4 hour marxist propaganda piece.  The latter seems unlikely, as Che has been called both “not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age” and “the butcher of La Cabana”.

So there you have it.  Two hot-button figures approached by two well-respected directors in familiar territory.  Very different approaches, but hopefully two films that will raise questions about the legacy of the most polarizing American President I can think of, and perhaps one of the most complex figures of the 20th centuries.

In the meantime, I’d recommend the documentary The True Story of Che Guevara, produced by the History Channel in the US.  It’s only 90 minutes, but covers a great deal of territory and demonstrates how complex Che’s legacy really is.  And The Queen just because it’s fantastic.  It’s been roughly a year since I’ve seen it, but it’s easily an A or A+, and Michael Sheen’s performance very nearly overtakes Helen Mirren’s.

Opinion, Television

Raise the stakes

1 Comment

If I remember anything from Ray Louter – one of my theatre professors and my primary acting and playwrighting instructor – has ever told me, it’s this:  Raise the stakes.  Storytelling is most interesting when there’s something that hangs in the balance.  Something including and in between embarrassment and death.  Anything.  It’s made me a better actor, a better writer, and a better director.  Believe me when I say that while I may forget the bulk of my education, I could never forget this.

Unfortunately for Jenji Kohan, she appears to have done so with her show Weeds.  You know the pitch:  suburban mom turns to pot dealing after the untimely death of her husband.  Hilarity ensues.  And for three seasons, it was one of my favourite shows.  Mary-Louise Parker is terrific as Nancy Botwin, who balances less-than-legal entrepreneurship with single parenthood.  It was the kind of show that could switch from high drama to low comedy in the same scene without missing a beat.  The supporting cast, including Justin Kirk as her brother in-law Andy and Kevin Nealon as disgraced accountant Doug Wilson, meshed in such a way that it was rarely, if ever, a dull show.  The third season stands out particularly, as it began with a mexican stand-off and somehow managed to never lose steam until it’s finale saw Nancy and her family literally rising from the ashes to fight another day.

Season 4 saw many changes.  Major characters like Conrad Shepard were gone.  Most of the background players didn’t follow the Botwins to the border town of Ren-Mar.  Neither did a good chunk of what made the show great.  The stakes, raised close to the highest they could be given the circumstances, are now worse than low.  They’re unclear.

That’s been my major beef with Weeds this season.  It’s still a well-written, well-acted show.  But great dialogue and actors to make that dialogue great will only get you so far.  Despite the sheer volume of illegal activities taking place (up to and including human smuggling, as well as the usual drug rackets), I have yet to care what happens to Nancy and company next.  Because while I know what’s theoretically at stake (jail, Silas and Shane homeless, etc), I’m not convinced the characters do.  I don’t live in their world.  Their world is defined by many things, but only the things expressed onscreen.  The threat of Nancy getting caught is long gone, as is so much as a reference or two per episode of her vocation.  And with few circumstances remaining constant from episode to episode, it’s simply too unclear what’s at stake.  I rarely have a sense of what their worst-case-scenario is.  And when I do (and when it comes to pass), it resolves itself with little to no consequence.  So as such, my level of empathy is dropping.  Andy and Doug have been smuggling immigrants across the US-Mexico border for much of the season, but it seems as though Doug not getting laid is their worst case scenario.

For a show that’s fundamentally about criminals, it’s alarming how little risk seems to be present.

I don’t want to discount Weeds entirely though.   It’s made me laugh out loud, gasp, and have difficulty waiting a week to see the next episode over.  It’s a show I’ve spent whole days marathoning DVD box sets with.  It’s made an Olsen twin not just watchable, but interesting.  Weeds is an A+ show having a C- season though.  Eleven of Thirteen episodes down, and I’m still waiting for so much as a return to form, let alone something that raises the bar.  While I can understand that the show needed to establish a new order (new location, new characters etc), it’s been handled in such a way that it’ll take an incredibly strong season finale to keep me around for a fifth season.  But for now, I’ll be waiting for a season finale that’ll make this post redundant.  If there’s anything Weeds does absolutely right, it’s those.