FILM: THE SECRET OF KELLS

This Oscar nominated animated film may not beat any of the studio heavy hitters it's competing with, but this Irish Indie feature looks incredible. The cinematic animation style is reminiscent of Samurai Jack. The New York Times printed this article earlier in the week that provides some more information. I'm not sure when it will open up here in San Francisco. Check it out!

Güero, the Commie Bastard?!

Let me start off by stating what a great Superbowl game it was yesterday. I actually sat through the entire game. But perhaps more amusing than the twisted ultraviolent adverts that were aired, was the fact that I received a reply to my email to local film critic, Mick Lasalle. I sent it two weeks ago after I read his review (click here) of the new flim "Che" directed by Steven Soderberg and starring Benicio del Torro. Stranger yet, he included it in his weekly "Ask Mick Lasalle" column in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle.

Here is my original, email:

Although you might be right that the film is one big boring stroke off to Che Guevara, I think your review was way too stewed in your own politics. I think that instead, you should have just questioned why Soderberg stayed away from some of the more controversial and questionable actions of Mr. Guevara. Your political attack is weak because while you mention Castro's faults, you don't mention that Batista was a dictator and a stooge for the corporate and criminal elements of the US. Castro was/is a dictator as well but he won independence for the people of Cuba. Things might not have been so bad in that country had the US, and the powerful Cuban lobby, in Florida not isolated it. Why for instance, is the U.S. so favorable to China? They are communist and oppressive as well. This is why I wish you stayed away from the politics. It read like you have your own political axe to grind.

John Nuno Jr.
San Francisco, CA

And here is how my email was edited in his column yesterday. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like he made me sound like I'm some kind of radical Pro-Castro communist.

Dear Mick LaSalle: I think your "Che" review was way too stewed in your own politics. Your political attack is weak because, while you mention Castro's faults, you don't mention that Fulgencio Batista was a dictator and a stooge for the corporate and criminal elements of the United States. Castro was/is a dictator as well, but he won independence for the people of Cuba.

John Nuno Jr., San Francisco

Dear John Nuno Jr.: Reviewing a movie about a political figure inevitably leads to a political response because the aesthetics of the movie become tied up with the politics. For example, if you praise Leni Riefenstahl's Hitler documentary, "Triumph of the Will," you end up either saying or implying that the film's great achievement is that it makes a monster look glorious and decisive. Now, there's nothing controversial in calling Adolf Hitler a monster, but that's still a political response. In the case of "Che," three-quarters of what's wrong with the film has to do with purely aesthetic considerations, but the rest of the problem is that director Steven Soderbergh chose a dubious figure for deification and then didn't make the case for treating him in that way. Had he chosen, say, Joan of Arc, as Jacques Rivette did in "Joan the Maid," the choice would have been less discordant and would have required less justification or explanation. Of course, to say that is both a political and an aesthetic judgment, but to refrain from making it would be to duck the task of criticism. Frankly, I would challenge anyone to review a 257-minute hagiography about Josef Stalin or Benito Mussolini or Benjamin Franklin or, for that matter, Dan Quayle without dealing with the contrast between the celebratory form and the worthiness of the subject. My point is, your problem is not really with the review, because there was nothing wrong with the review. Rather, your problem is with the opinion that inevitably came through it, which is that a dictator who prevents free elections in his country for 50 years is no liberator and that the revolutionary who helped bring him into power is a bizarre subject for heroic screen treatment.

Indeed, Mick Lasalle is the critic and it's his column but I still feel his own political views overshadowed why some one like Che Guevara could develop such a following in the first place. Look, I'm aware that Guevara committed some pretty horrendous atrocities, including ones that even shocked and awed his own revolutionary comrades. I think it's completely fair for anyone to challenge Soderberg for making a 257-minute film about Che Guevara and not delve into his darker and down-right murderous and Stalinist tendencies. Mick Lasalle, however only sticks to his own views, without considering the whole context of what nefarious activities were being perpetrated in Central and South America in our country's name. National Independence is an American legacy which we all celebrate, but back then the U.S. did almost everything to crush any kind of movement in that direction, even when the leaders were primarily moderate, in order to keep a handle on the natural resources there. Needless to say, I was disappointed but probably not surprised that Lasalle didn't mention anything about our close economic ties to China, a large communist country that's also well known for it's deplorable human rights - even on a greater scale than itsy-bitsy Cuba. China also has the world's largest army and nuclear weapons. I don't think Mick Lasalle has ever made a big fuss about any films that have been produced from that country and he hasn't complained about why we show them here. He also doesn't seem to want to entertain my point that change may have come to Cuba from within itself, if we didn't isolate the country as we have and continue to do.

But now, there I am, in his column, in print, sounding like some kind of pro-communist supporter. Shit like this in the 1950s could have got me blacklisted or my phone bugged. But maybe, that's only assuming I had any influence...which I don't. And did I mention that I haven't even seen the movie? It looks interesting but I hear it's a snooze-fest...

Related Posts:
ON THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION:THOUGHTS ON "THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES"

LEFTIST REVOLUTIONARY CHICKS ARE HOT!

THE NO GREEN SCREEN EXPRESS:MORE BOLLYWOOD RUMINATIONS

The Güero's Bollywood Music Video Review for "Chaiyya, Chaiyya"

Since seeing the brilliant, yet slightly over-hyped, "Slumdog Millionare"(2008) a few weeks back, I've been peeping a few Bollywood videos on the Youtube. Well, actually, I watched some before but perhaps I've been paying closer attention. I know this entertainment isn't for all. Indeed, I don't know if I could sit through an entire Bollywood movie - I mean maybe I could, I just don't know but that's not even the point. The point is, I can completely understand why a large segment of human beings on this earth could dig this kind of entertainment in a big way.

This video from the Bollywood hit "Dil Se"(1998) is a perfect example. Yes, it's older but this song and dance number is nothing short of amazing. I'm no big song and dance man, in fact, I disdain most musicals, but just take a peep and see for yourself. Sure, there are some short comings, like I don't know where the Bollywood producers buy their film stock or where they get it processed, but all their prints look like every movie was just pulled out of a 1970's film vault with a real bitchin' humidity problem.

This scene is all shot on an open train. Remember, this was 1998 and there were probably as many green screens in Mumbai as there were enforceable health and safety codes. If this was shot in Hollywood, chances are the train would have been computer generated -and probably most of the dancers to. Just watch as the singers and dancers jump and sing on a moving- yes moving train. I doubt there was any wire work but I could be wrong. Did they lose a few dancers on the way? Hell, we'll probably never know. The limited amount of experience I have with film production gives me cause to appreciate this effort even more so. For instance, I can't imagine managing all those dancers and crew along with what was probably a near endless amount of takes and camera set-ups , including steady-cam operators dodging the talent on a god damned moving train. The weather conditions were most likely butt-ass cold and windy.

And the music? Like I said, it's not for all but the big syncopated beats along with the ethereal elements of the rhythm and vocals make this track a catchy, noteworthy one. I've read in some places that this song was used for the end credits of Spike Lee's "Inside Man"(2006). The main talent Shahrukh Khan, who is the equivalent of 'Tom Cruise' of Bollywood (Minus the Thetans), and Manisha Koirala. While I don't dismiss the star power, it's probably my own deep-rooted, cultural dismissiveness that causes me to wonder why the female actresses always are presented to be so beautiful and sensual looking while the male leads, somehow, look more like the guys I buy camera accessories from on Powell Street! (But seriously, this cat Shahrukh Khan, he even has an action figure based on his character from this movie - for serious -it's true!). Alright, so it's not what I would normally equate to a Hollyood male lead, but I embrace the global culture that surrounds me and I don't let it get in the way of good, solid entertainment - and neither should you.

Dil Ce - Chaiyya, Chaiyya (1998)




Related Post(s): Totally Random: Bollywood Beyonce?

DÉBORA NASCIMENTO: WHAT'S REALLY "INCREDIBLE" ABOUT THE HULK!

This really isn't a movie review, in fact, it's not a review at all. OK, I saw the movie and I liked it. The first Hulk movie, the overwrought drama by Ang Lee, has been completely tossed into the cinematic round file and they've started a whole new franchise with Ed Norton. I'm all for it. First Iron Man and now this movie...it's been a good summer for superhero movies as the filmmakers grew up with the genre and actually understand and care about it. Well thank God for that and how proud and happy we are for all of them, but what struck me more than Ed Norton's deft take on Bruce Banner and Liv Tyler's bad acting, was Brazilian bombshell, Débora Nascimento!! I think she was in the movie for all of one minute but I'm quite confident every geek googled her when they had the chance, like...well...like I did when I got home.

Understanding Banner's condition (transforming into the Hulk, after rapid increases of his heart rate) effectively conveys to the heterosexual male viewer the utter and unbearable torture that he lives with. Oh the humanity!!! I was quite disappointed when the plot had moved out of the the beautifully shot,Brazilian favela and I had to face the fact that her role was done. It would have been more interesting if they just kept the entire movie set in Brazil. Yeah, I'm a little biased but it's difficult to watch the post-Aerosmith Liv Tyler after seeing Débora Nascimento. She's "incredible" and I'm certain we will be seeing a lot more of her.