war

Paris 1919
Editor’s Note: I’ve decided to begin posting some reviews of films screening at Hot Docs 2009 early, hope­fully helping anyone attending make some decisions about what to see. Paris 1919 is screening on Friday May 1 at 7:00pm and Sunday May 10 at 11:00am at the Isabel Bader Theatre.

Paris 1919 (Director: Paul Cowan): Having read the book by Margaret MacMillan on which this doc­u­mentary is based, I was a little dubious upon hearing that dir­ector Cowan would be using re-enactments to create the atmo­sphere of the Versailles Peace Conference. But wisely, he chose to use these strictly as atmo­sphere, let­ting the archival footage and espe­cially the strong nar­ra­tion by Canadian actor R.H. Thomson carry the weight of the story.

In the early months of 1919, the world, weary of fighting, gathered in Paris to hammer out a peace accord. But the Great War ended in an armistice, not a sur­render, and so there was much at stake for all the parties. The old empires had col­lapsed and into the vacuum stepped a man prom­ising self-determination for all the peoples of the world. US pres­ident Woodrow Wilson offered his own ver­sion of Obama-like hope, espe­cially to the smaller nations of the world who had here­to­fore been the pawns of imperial powers. The defeated Germans also hoped that Wilson’s steady hand would deliver peace with justice. Alas, it was not to be.

Instead, Britain and France were determ­ined to bleed Germany dry for war repar­a­tions. Both coun­tries had suffered enorm­ously, espe­cially France, and they had little regard for the suf­fer­ings of Germany. Voters in both coun­tries were put­ting enormous pres­sure on their leaders, David Lloyd George of Britain and Georges Clemenceau of France, to bank­rupt Germany as pun­ish­ment for her guilt in starting the war. In con­trast, Wilson was obsessed with the idea of estab­lishing a League of Nations, a body that would arbit­rate dis­putes between nations in the hope of pre­venting war. His idealism and naivete were soon chal­lenged, and gradu­ally he made many com­prom­ises in order to secure sup­port from the other leaders for the League.

The end result was dis­astrous for Germany and ulti­mately for Europe and the world. Maps were redrawn dis­pla­cing mil­lions of people, assets were seized and mon­etary dam­ages demanded. The German del­eg­a­tion went home angry and humi­li­ated. In the years that fol­lowed, the German people’s resent­ment was ripe for exploit­a­tion and rising nation­alism soon engulfed the whole country, leading to Nazism and another world war.

Cowan’s film couldn’t have encom­passed all the various nego­ti­ations that went on at Versailles, and huge chunks of MacMillan’s book are simply passed over, including the fate of coun­tries like Poland and Turkey. But he cap­tures the essence of the power struggle between the leaders, and makes some great choices in the re-enactments. By focusing on minor char­ac­ters like Harold Nicolson and espe­cially eco­nomist John Maynard Keynes, we get a real feel for what it was like for the bur­eau­crats labouring in smoky rooms to untie the Gordian knot of European griev­ances, espe­cially when they felt their leaders were pur­suing the wrong course.

I think the best com­pli­ment I can pay to Cowan’s film is to say that it left me wanting more, and for that, I will return to Margaret MacMillan’s excel­lent book, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World.

Official web site of the film

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Living in Emergency: Stories of Doctors Without Borders
Editor’s Note: Doc Soup is a monthly doc­u­mentary screening pro­gramme run by the good folks at Hot Docs. It gives audi­ences in Toronto (and now Calgary and Vancouver!) their reg­ular doc fix each year from the fall through to the spring, leading up to the Hot Docs fest­ival itself.

Living in Emergency: Stories of Doctors Without Borders (Director: Mark Hopkins): Judging by the title alone, I was a little appre­hensive that this film would be nothing but a slick promo for Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Paris-based crisis med­ical charity, but I’m happy to say that Mark Hopkins’ film is a many-shaded por­trait of some of the bravest and most ded­ic­ated people in the world.

I’ve always respected the work that MSF does, and the film does a great job of showing the actual con­di­tions that these volun­teer doc­tors work in. But it goes well beyond that, showing the effects of the strain of working a six-month “mis­sion” in places where there may be no other med­ical infra­struc­ture for miles around. We follow sev­eral doc­tors on assign­ments in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, including two who are on their first mis­sion. The stag­gering stat­istics say that fewer than half of all doc­tors return for a second mis­sion, and it’s not hard to see why. Conditions are never ideal, but lack of med­ical sup­plies com­pounded with com­mu­nic­a­tion dif­fi­culties, and a sud­denly increased load of respons­ib­ility all take their toll. Some of the vet­erans speak openly of “run­ning on empty” and everyone smokes and drinks too much. One of the vet­erans, Dr. Chiara Lepora, encour­ages everyone to have as much sex as pos­sible, since they’re sur­rounded by death all day long and that “sex is life.” During one scene, an intox­ic­ated Dr. Chris Brasher boasts that MSF accom­plishes more than UNICEF, with its end­less meet­ings and plans. MSF volun­teers are doers, and they all seem to share that unfussy attitude.

But the man­date that encour­ages that spirit of doing also has clear lim­it­a­tions. MSF oper­ates solely as a crisis med­ical pro­vider, as in war zones and after nat­ural dis­asters. When those con­di­tions cease to exist, MSF close their bases and move on. Given that many of these coun­tries don’t have func­tioning med­ical infra­struc­tures, this can seem heart­less, but keeping their mis­sion focused on emer­gency help has main­tained the organization’s edge and responsiveness.

We do wit­ness the closing of a base in Liberia, and Dr. Lepora’s going-away party is bit­ter­sweet for the local med­ical staff being left behind, but MSF has stub­bornly refused to expand their man­date into devel­op­ment work, leaving that to other NGOs and the local min­is­tries of health. As Dr. Brasher bluntly points out, though, every person they help with emer­gency sur­gery or other inter­ven­tion is someone who likely would have died without their help. And though this good work takes a toll on the volun­teers, it also has imme­diate rewards. So although many of the doc­tors don’t return for second mis­sions, the ones that do often spend the rest of their lives in one far-flung and ill-equipped out­post after another. And they wouldn’t have it any other way.

Hopkins’ film drives home the point that no matter how much money we in the West donate to charity, there still need to be people on the ground actu­ally doing some­thing to help in these emer­gency situ­ations. I can’t think of anyone get­ting closer to the situ­ation than a doctor or nurse up to her wrists in gore, put­ting yet another broken body back together. It’s not an easy sight to look at, but that doesn’t mean it’s not beautiful.

I had only one small quibble with the film and that is that with so many people speaking accented English, the sound mix was too muddled. In the post-screening Q&A, dir­ector Mark Hopkins prom­ised a better sound mix on the theatrical/DVD release, as well as better use of subtitles.

Official web site of the film

Here is the Q&A with dir­ector Mark Hopkins from after the screening:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (ver­sion 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest ver­sion here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Duration: 15:02

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Waltz with Bashir

Waltz with Bashir (2008, Director: Ari Folman): I think calling this an anim­ated doc­u­mentary might be stretching it a bit, but dir­ector Ari Folman has cre­ated some­thing really inter­esting. He’s used anim­a­tion to go where doc­u­mentary film­making hasn’t been able to take us before, into the memories, dreams and night­mares of its sub­jects. The film starts when Ari (looking uncan­nily like Italian film diarist Nanni Morretti) shares a drink with an old army buddy who describes his recur­ring night­mare of being chased by 28 dogs. After finding out that this relates to spe­cific incid­ents from the 1982 Lebanon war, we dis­cover that Ari Folman has little recol­lec­tion of his par­ti­cip­a­tion in that con­flict. But after this meeting, he begins having a strange recur­ring dream and after con­sulting a psy­cho­lo­gist friend, he decides he needs to try to figure out why his memory seems blocked.

As he inter­views other par­ti­cipants in the war, he begins to piece together his part in a larger nar­rative, that of Israeli com­pli­ance in the mas­sacre of thou­sands of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. “Christian” Phalangist mili­tias entered the camps and mas­sacred men, women and chil­dren for three hor­rific days, killing more than 3,000. Despite the mili­tias’ stated aim of rooting out Palestinian fighters, the vast majority of these fighters had been evac­u­ated weeks before. The blood­bath was widely seen as revenge for the assas­sin­a­tion of the Phalangists’ leader, the recently-elected President Bashir Gemayel. Although Folman’s memory is never com­pletely reli­able, he seems to remember his army unit firing flares so that the mili­tias could carry out their work at night.

The most shocking moment of the film comes right at the end, when the anim­a­tion sud­denly snaps into real-life video footage of the carnage, leaving a dra­matic impres­sion. Despite the unre­li­ab­ility of memory, and the nature of guilt (both sur­vivor guilt and that of someone who killed other human beings) and its effect on the mind, this footage is evid­ence of a real atro­city, and Folman and his com­rades have had to live with their part in this tragedy for more than twenty years. It’s no wonder that he used anim­a­tion; it’s the per­fect way to recreate nightmares.

Unfortunately, the dir­ector flew home after the film’s opening screening and wasn’t present for a Q&A.

Official site of the film
Trailer

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived

Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived (2008, Director: Koji Masutani): This film is some­what awkardly titled. It’s not a re-creation of an alternate timeline where JFK sur­vives. Rather, it’s a carefully-argued essay whose thesis is that, based on the way John F. Kennedy dealt with sev­eral mil­itary crises early in his pres­id­ency, he would not have escal­ated the war in Vietnam and that per­haps the tragedy of almost 60,000 American dead (not to men­tion 2,000,000 Vietnamese) could have been averted.

Narrated and written by Professor James Blight of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, who was Errol Morris’ advisor on The Fog of War, Virtual JFK exam­ines six dif­ferent crises faced by the young pres­ident in his abbre­vi­ated time in office. Two involved Cuba (the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961 and the Cuban mis­sile crisis in 1962), one was European (the con­struc­tion of the Berlin wall in 1961), and the other three involved Southeast Asia (two con­front­a­tions over Vietnam, one over Laos). In every case, Kennedy stared down the hawks in his admin­is­tra­tion and the mil­itary com­manders who were advoc­ating war. In every case, his cau­tion avoided cata­strophe, most not­ably in the Cuban mis­sile crisis, which many his­tor­ians believe was the closest the world ever came to nuc­lear war. Blight has every reason to believe that Kennedy would have pre­vailed on the sub­ject of Vietnam as well. What he doesn’t dis­cuss is the pos­sib­ility that this had any­thing to do with JFK’s assas­sin­a­tion, although that hypo­thesis has been cir­cu­lated by more than a few people.

Overall, this was enjoy­able and well-argued, but not excep­tional. On a per­sonal level, I enjoyed seeing so much footage of Kennedy’s press con­fer­ences. His cha­risma is clearly evident in his good-natured exchanges with journ­al­ists, even when he was under con­sid­er­able stress. It also sur­prised me how much Kennedy had to deal with in such a short time. The world was going through some major upheavals, and we’re for­tu­nate that Kennedy was guiding a rest­less America with such a steady hand. This film shows us how much more tragic his death was than we may have believed. Apart from all the usual sen­ti­mental stuff about Camelot and the loss of hope, America lost a man of cau­tion who had been a war­rior of peace.

Incidentally, some reviewers have com­plained that the film makes a blunt par­allel with George W. Bush and his hand­ling of the Iraq war, but the con­nec­tion is never made overtly. In the times we’re living in, how­ever, it’s hard not to find a cri­tique almost every­where we look.

Official site of the film
Watson Institute for International Studies page on the film
Trailer

7/10(7/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }