Review of Gabbeh (1996) by Dave J — 03 Apr 2012

[b][color=black]Room Service (William Seiter, 1938- 1st Seiter Film/ 8th Marx Brothers Film)[/color][/b].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=black]The worst Marx Brothers film I have seen. It is hard to believe that it came immediately after the comedic genius of A Day at the Races. Groucho?s one-liners aren?t as consistent, the sight gags aren?t as funny, and no scene is memorable enough to consider it among the Marx Brothers? best moments. How I rate the Marx Brothers films is usually how hard I laugh, not how frequently?I consider that a given in their films?but the frequency of successful jokes in Room Service is remarkably low for one of their film. The last twenty minutes are fairly inspired, but that?s about it. It?s too bad, because with no musical numbers and a good plot this one could have been really good?only if it had come during their peak.[/color][/size][/font][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][b][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]Fahrenheit 911 (Michael Moore, 2004- 3rd Moore Film)[/color][/size][/font][/b][/font].

[b][color=#000000][/color][/b].

[font=Times New Roman][b][font=Verdana][/font][/b][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]Going into the movie theater for Fahrenheit 911, I expected to be unmoved by the film. I have never been a fan of Moore?s style?humor over intellect, manipulating emotions, a deceiving editing style?and from early synopsizes it seemed Fahrenheit 911, while containing less of Moore, didn?t deviate from Moore?s style to a great extent. Which is true, all of his characteristics are here, but the film works in ways that neither Bowling for Columbine or Roger and Me did.[/color][/size][/font][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]That doesn?t mean the film isn?t flawed, because it is, but it could be said that Moore was more interested in changing minds than making a good film. He?ll probably only succeed in the latter though, because while the film certainly won?t help its opponents, I can?t see it hurting them either. For a documentary the film is too indirect in its focus and it take too long to get to the apparent focus of the film, the War on Terror and the real reasons behind it. When the film finally gets to the portion with the grief-stricken mother, the military recruiters, and how the media uses terror warnings, among other tactics, to scare the public, the film is very successful and interesting, but the opening with footage ranging from a recap of the 2000 election to Bush?s vacation time is awkwardly paced.[/color][/size][/font].

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]While humor is definitely something Moore uses a lot, it has been toned down considerably from Bowling for Columbine because of the more somber tone in Fahrenheit 911. Which is where Moore shows his true skill as a manipulator (while that word makes it sound bad, in this film it works). You laugh, only to find yourself angry in the next scene, disturbed in the next, and crying in others. It?s a film that held an immense power over me while watching the film, but when the images die away, I seem to be only to accentuate its flaws. Why can?t Moore try to educate, rather than persuade? Why must he use such a deceptive style? [Although he doesn?t necessarily lie, as much as he leaves out information that doesn?t benefit his opinion, most obviously in his, comically done, introduction of the countries involved in the coalition, where he shows only the smallest countries, leaving out countries such as Britain, Italy, and Japan].[/color][/size][/font].

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]When making Roger & Me and, to a certain extent, Bowling for Columbine, Moore was not very well known to the mainstream. But after the success of Bowling for Columbine and his books, he can?t go around as an unknown anymore. This shows during one scene in the film where he approaches a congress member, who upon seeing him hurriedly walks away and says something to the extent of ?no, you don?t?. This could be one reason for his diminished role in the film, and could result in a trend of smaller parts for Moore in his films.[/color][/size][/font].

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]It?s his best film of the three I have seen, and his most mature?but I think he still hasn?t made his best film yet. If he can avoid the cheap shots, try to use intellect over humor, he could have a great career in film ahead of him, and go down as one of the most influential and greatest documentarians of all-time.[/color][/size][/font].

[font=Verdana][color=#000000][/color][/font].

[b][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]Gabbeh (Mohsen Makhmalbaf, 1997- 1st Makhmalbaf Film)[/color][/size][/font][/b].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]A huge disappointment by a director, who, while I have seen only this film, is often considered one of the greatest Iranian directors along with Kiarostami and Majidi (I?m a fan of both). The problem with this film is that it depends on symbolism so much, that while it may mean something to a different person, it did nothing for me. At other times the film?s symbolism is so simple that it becomes silly, ?Life is color? (character holds up all different colors of yarn), ?Death is?? (Holds up black yarn). Which is the film?s second problem?it is too simple. The plot doesn?t go anywhere, which is fine in some films, but the characters in this film are so boring and uninteresting that for just a 75 minute film, it seems to go on for at least two hours. The film is also awkwardly edited?jumping back and forward between stories without much smoothness or rhythm?and confused in its direction. Beautiful locales (which the cinematographer takes advantage of) are one of the film?s only high points. While Kiarostami appeals to the intellect and Majidi taps into your emotions, Makhmalbaf has managed to create a bland film that while it tries to do both, succeeds at neither.[/color][/size][/font][/font].

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=black][b]Gattaca (Andrew Niccol, 1997- 1st Niccol Film)[/b][/color][/size][/font].

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=black]It?s rare for a film, especially a science fiction one, to build up to an event that is then only briefly shown. But then again, Gattaca isn?t the normal science fiction film. It is focused more on its ideas, performances, and production design, not special effects, and was often referred to as ?smart sci-fi? upon its release.[/color][/size][/font].

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=black]Gattaca has an excellent premise and concepts in the script that loose a bit in their transfer to the screen, but still the core ideas remain intact, if not slightly weakened. The frightening thought that society would be split up into two categories?the ?valids? and the ?invalids??is even more chilling with the notion that the film happens ?sometime in the near future?. While the voice-over is sometimes a distraction, it often offers insightful commentary (?We now have discrimination down to a science?) that is devoid of any cringe-worthy dialogue.[/color][/size][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=black]It?s also a great ensemble with a stand out performance by Jude Law.[/color][/size][/font][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][/font][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][b][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]Touching the Void (Kevin Macdonald, 2004- 1st Macdonald Film)[/color][/size][/font][/b][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=#000000]Usually it?s the documentary part of ?docudramas? that interest me (mainly because most reenactments are uninspired) but it was in fact the reenactment of the true mountain climbing story that was just as interesting as the interviews with the two climbers. The reenactment is a very detailed one and, surprisingly, a suspenseful one too. Surprisingly, because we know the outcome?they survive?from the very first scene. It?s how they survive and the odds they overcome that is the truly amazing part of the story, and made suspenseful through filmmaker Macdonald?s use of chilling?rarely used?close-ups of the climbers, awe-inspiring helicopter shots through the mountains, and slow motion shots of loose snow falling as the climbers dig their boots and picks into the mountain.[/color][/size][/font][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Times New Roman][size=2][font=Verdana][color=#000000]The one thing that bothered me about the film was its odd stylistic turn in its final half hour. The film always kept a distance from the actors, maybe trying to portray how small they looked in comparison to the mountain or perhaps trying to downplay their appearance differences to the real people, but in Joe?s final descent of the mountain, Macdonald starts using[/color][color=black] close-ups and even tries to get inside the character?s head (a no-no for docudramas?just tell the story). The film becomes surreal with shaky cameras, jump cuts to odd shots of running water, and a soundtrack consisting of Boney M?s ?Brown Girl in the Ring?. Not the direction the film needed to go.[/color][/font][/size][/font][/font].

[font=Times New Roman][font=Times New Roman][font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2][color=black]Instead of releasing films "based on a true story", directors should try the style that Macdonald goes for in making the film half documentary and half drama. It would decrease the number of dull period pieces, and the increase the number of "docudramas".[/color][/size][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font].