March 7, 2015

Elem Klimov's Come and See

Watched Come and See (『炎628』), a 1985 Belarussian war film. No joke, it was as hard to watch as Resnais' Night and Fog (so much that I'd put off seeing it for about a decade.) The film opens with a young teenage boy from a small, war-impoverished village digging in sand for an abandoned rifle so he can join the army to fight against the Nazis. He (and the audience) has no way of preparing for all the horrors he will face, as he faces one atrocity after another without ever being able to make sense of it all.

If, like me, most of the war films you've seen are from Hollywood, everything about the film will stun your senses. None of the elements you cling to in an American war film are present here: the soundtrack is by Mozart but is jarringly overlaid with the persistent drone of a jet, or the buzzing of flies. The long takes don't show off the fluidity of the scenes or the action, but instead show how suddenly and uncomprehendingly cruelties are forced upon people. The protagonist goes on no honorable soldier's "journey"; he simply survives, moving from one demolished village to the next, abject horror etched permanently on his face. Characters are shot in close-up, but look straight into the camera, allowing not empathy but instead making you feel almost accused.

All of this makes the film almost impossible to watch. And yet, it made me think, what good is there in making a war film that is amenable to the audience? I'm sure Hollywood war films are considered educational, but what is the value of a war film that reduces ideologies to a good side and a bad side, creates action scenes that offer an adrenaline rush and makes us cheer on the annihilation of human beings? It's so easy to dismiss these films as entertainment, but it's interesting how certain morals are always upheld in American films while others get a slide.

American Sniper

Went to a screening of American Sniper last night, a biopic of US Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle directed by Clint Eastwood. As someone who views the US military with skepticism, and is also not religious, I couldn't fully appreciate Kyle's motivations for joining the Navy, or see the virtue in his continuing to fight even after so much death and carnage, both on the US side, and the Iraqi side (him being personally responsible for the deaths of over 160 people).

At the same time, I can see how audiences could cheer on Bradley Cooper as he picks off enemy after enemy with precision (literally killing it at his job), and admiring his character's unwavering stance on protecting his country and honoring God's will. (I'm sure this is what has led to explosive box office in the States.)

The story is told solely through Kyle's experience, and you see little evidence of him considering the larger repercussions of war. When Kyle returns to Iraq for a fourth tour of duty despite the protestations of his wife, his main motivation is to avenge the death of a comrade. Some may see this as honorable, but I saw it as a forced myopia that allows soldiers to keep doing their job. This is enforced by stray storylines of soldiers becoming despondent when they start questioning the aims of war, leaving the army, or even committing suicide.

These contrasting reactions are made possible by the opacity of Bradley Cooper's central performance. I'm trying to figure out how much of it was intentional; I feel like a more skillful actor could have been more emotionally transparent, even while playing a shellshocked, taciturn war vet. When the protagonist is a big, wooden hunk of a person, it rather takes away from the watchability of the film, but it also allows viewers to project their own ideas of war onto the film.

Despite these points of interest, I was disappointed by how pedestrian the film is overall. Many scenes are staged with a surprising lack of originality: the obligatory boot camp montage, where the recruits are called "ladies" and hosed down with ice-cold water; the way you know a soldier is going to die when he says, "I bought a ring for my girl". So few Hollywood films manage a fresh interpretation of the war movie.

So yeah, while I didn't particularly enjoy the film, it certainly has the ability to generate interesting discussions.

January 31, 2015

Tokyo International Great Quilt Festival 2015: The Iconoclasts

It's always exciting when you see people take a long-established craft and reinterpret in bold and exciting ways. The following are some of my favorite's from this year's festival.

I recognized this quilter's work in an instant. (Scroll down to the bottom of this page.) She certainly has a flair for storytelling, and injecting humor into her work.

 Spot all of the Gallic references!

 Pushing the definition of "quilt" to the hilt.

 These artists could work for couture houses!

 The text above is a sutra.

 Perhaps my favorite: a quilt made up of hobo symbols.

 The tongue-in-cheek humor, in addition to the truly original concept, made this one a favorite too.

This swordfish isn't caught in the trawling net! He's gotten away!

 Hundreds and hundreds of gulls.

Tokyo International Great Quilt Festival 2015: The Beautiful Works You Come to Expect

It says something about the level of talent among the participants that the following quilts, as painstakingly designed and sewn as they are, seem somewhat derivative. (Compare last year's photos.)

This was cute: an homage to different types of cocktails.

 As mindblowing as this looks, it is an oft-repeated idea.

Initially minimalist yet quite detailed.

 This was a tribute to Anne Shirley, from the Anne of Green Gables series.

 The inevitable Frozen quilt.

Tokyo International Great Quilt Festival 2015: Close-ups

This one was made by a group of schoolkids in junior high.

Closeup of the snowflake quilt.