Sunday, September 17, 2006

Lights in the Dusk

Lights in the Dusk (Finland/Germany/France, dir­ector Aki Kaurismäki): This is the third film in Kaurismäki’s “Helsinki Trilogy” (the others are Drifting Clouds (1996) and The Man Without a Past (2002)) While I haven’t seen the first, this film shares many them­atic and formal ele­ments with the second film, and I enjoyed it just as much.

Koistinen is a lonely security guard who is ignored by his co-workers; that is, when he’s not being teased by them. His life is soon turned upside down by a femme fatale, with heart­breaking res­ults. Despite the grim-sounding plot, the film is full of the director’s trade­mark deadpan humour. And I’m in awe of how he can make the film just radiate love des­pite the mannered acting and awk­ward sta­ging. Perhaps it has to do with the warmth of the lighting and the colour palette, as well as the use of nos­talgic music and art dir­ec­tion. Whatever it is, from the first frame, you know the dir­ector loves this sad sack and wants us to love him too.

The films of the Helsinki Trilogy all deal with people on the mar­gins, and it’s clear that Kaurismäki’s sym­pathies lie with the common people and not with those whose suc­cess or power has dehu­man­ized them. He is a true humanist, and his “heroes” all bear their suf­fer­ings stoic­ally; in fact, they quite lit­er­ally per­sonify a “never-say-die” atti­tude, and that makes them admir­able. Their hangdog expres­sions may make us pity them, but it’s their core of inner strength that makes us love them.

9/10(9/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire (USA, dir­ector Tony Kaye): A monu­mental (152 minutes!) doc­u­mentary on the abor­tion issue filmed over a 15-year period, Tony Kaye’s film is likely to become a classic. The film covers all kinds of ground and fea­tures inter­views with many people on both sides of the issue. Perhaps sur­pris­ingly, quite a few of them have intel­li­gent things to say.

There is quite a lot of (and I’d say too much) cov­erage of the extreme fringe of the pro-life move­ment, including the string of killings of abor­tion doc­tors in the 1990s, and a very strange and pos­sibly insane man who runs an organ­iz­a­tion called Lambs of Jesus. Too often, the pro-life camp is described as simply an exten­sion of the Christian Right’s agenda. While that may be largely true, there are mil­lions of other people with pro-life views that are much less extreme, who are not neces­sarily marching or pick­eting abor­tion clinics. It would have been nice to hear from some of them. One inter­esting pro-life advocate was writer Nat Hentoff, a lib­eral atheist. In the pro-choice camp, there were a few not­able voices, including lawyer Alan Dershowitz and Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice. Then there were those who appeared to be in the middle some­where, including sev­eral med­ical bioeth­i­cists and even Noam Chomsky, who was per­haps the most elo­quent voice in the film.

I sup­pose the extensive cov­erage of the shoot­ings of abor­tion doc­tors may have been included to bal­ance the equally dis­turbing images of abor­tion pro­ced­ures, including the doctor “piecing together” the body parts of the fetus after the pro­cedure. Any honest film about abor­tion needs to address these very real images.

I believe it may have been Chomsky who stated that abor­tion comes down to a dif­fi­cult choice between two (and pos­sibly more) com­peting but authentic values. He also pointed out that if pro-life sup­porters claim to be con­cerned about chil­dren, there were lots of easy ways to help the many suf­fering chil­dren in the world, but that few were actu­ally doing much about it.

The film con­cludes with two seg­ments where I found the use of music to be manip­u­lative. One is the state­ment by a nurse who was severely injured in an abor­tion clinic bombing, and the final longer seg­ment fol­lows one woman as she goes through the entire abor­tion pro­cedure, from filling out forms to her sudden break­down as she tries to tell the inter­viewer she’s “relieved.” The images and stories were powerful enough without the need for swelling strings in the back­ground. As well, it’s not always clear when each part of the film was shot, or whether we’re seeing things in chro­no­lo­gical order at all, and for a film that covers 15 years of a chan­ging polit­ical land­scape, it would be nice to have a timeline and even some stat­istics to see how things are changing.

Other than those rel­at­ively minor mis­giv­ings, this is a land­mark film and has set a high standard for fea­ture length doc­u­ment­aries dealing with this rel­at­ively neg­lected sub­ject. The two and a half hours went by very quickly, and I was even left wanting more. Director Kaye says he has lots more and could even make the material into a tele­vi­sion series. I for one would be interested.

8.5/10(8.5/10) — my graphic doesn’t show half-points

{ Comments on this entry are closed }