«Bravo Two Zero» (1999)

 WORLD WAR II MOVIE SET IN 1991

The Gulf War, aka The Desert Storm, was one of the last high points of the collective Western World. In 1990, all of the major Western powers formed a coalition, joined by certain Arab states, and drove Saddam Hussein back from Kuwait.

«Bravo Two Zero» deals with one of the episodes of this war – an eight-member SAS team was dropped into Iraqi territory to track Scud missile sites, so that Iraqis will not be able to attack Israel. They are elite soldiers, but the trouble soon starts kicking in – the radio is not working, the ammo is not unlimited and, the most important of all, the desert hides a lot of painful surprises for them.

During the beginning of the Gulf War, US President George H. W. Bush emphasized that this would not become another open-ended Vietnam-style war, and that troops would return home once the mission — liberating Kuwait — was completed. Additionally, the military were able to control the flow of information to the journalists, so the viewers were presented, mostly, with the state-approved positive images.

This gave the Gulf War the feel of a moral and justified war. That is why «Bravo Two Zero» has a clear World War II cinema spirit - the good guys are fighting in a just and moral war and they are seen as heroes by the general public. It is not like the Vietnam War film (i.e. «Platoon») where you feel the immorality or, at least, questionability of soldier’s actions.

Additionally, the film is not a high-budget American blockbuster, but it gives it the feel of authenticity. The soldiers are regular British blokes with funny accents; they cannot fire 200 rounds without reloading and, despite their superior training, they cannot hold off forever against Iraqi armor. Will they make it? Watch – and find out.

The film also captures the spirit of Special Operation Forces. Those guys are dropped deep behind enemy lines and from that minute they are basically fighting by themselves. Danger surrounds them everywhere and even if they are able to call in support, it will arrive not so fast and every extra minute takes away their chances of surviving this day.

So, in conclusion, let me say that given the current sorry state of the Western World, «Bravo Two Zero» is a refreshing look at the strong and resilient West of the past. Watch it – you will not be disappointed, of course, if you are not loony left! 

«The Belly of an Architect» (1987)

 Everything’s permissible for art

An American architect Stourley Kracklite and his wife Louisa are coming to Rome, and the former is entrusted with organizing of exhibition about the XVIIIth century French architect Etienne-Louis Boullee. Stourley is excited about this possibility, but the world is starting to crumble around him, and it all starts... with severe stomach pains. What not-so-known American architect can do about it.

Rome, without any exaggerating, is the cradle of the Western civilization. It has numerous museums, statues, archeological digs, exhibitions and etc., and millions of tourists come to visit them annually. The artists also draw their inspiration from Ancient Rome. Nevertheless, what can we say about modern Rome? It’s like almost any other big city is the city of blood, meat and money.

Monumental art is always funded by big money and history knows many examples when this money is not very clean. Just remember that the Renaissance artists were funded, among other things, by the corrupt cardinals and by the shady bankers. Cinema also could be financed by dirty money or used for money laundering; it even concerns such films as «The Wolf of Wall Street» (check 1MDB scandal).

Additionally, history is full of the artists, who were not very revered by the contemporaries, but whose work became influential for the next generation of the artists. Their legacy is presented in professional books, but the general audience has a very limited recollection of their life and work. Still, from time to time even such artists are getting exhibitions, and the public are introduced to their work.

The film draws a parallel between the vocations of architect and film director. Among other things, both vocations are requiring knowledge of the technical stuff (strength of materials for architects and physics of sound for film directors), people management skills and, the most important of all, they require substantial financial backing. In this aspect, struggling architect Stourley Kracklite is akin to struggling film directors from such films as «8 1/2», «The Public Woman» and « Beware of a Holy Whore».

Every artist has a specific old master, who inspires, and the latter’s work is heavily referenced in the former’s creative activity (Fritz Lang for Jean-Luc Godard, Dario Argento for Nicolas Winding Refn). In the course of the movie, Stourley Kracklite becomes so obsessed with Etienne-Louis Boullee that he thinks that his life is beginning to parallel the life of the great predecessor.

As it was written before, architecture and cinema are very expensive and «The Belly of an Architect» captures the constant clash between money and pure art. The history knows a lot of examples when the creation was taken from the author and changed to the point of absolute noncompliance with the original vision, but it still retained the author’s name (the first version of «Heaven’s Gate» or the American cut of «Once Upon a Time in America»). Will Stourley Kracklite be able to preserve his vision? Watch and find the answer.

Summarizing all of the above, «The Belly of an Architect» is a beautiful and mesmerizing portrait of artist’s struggle in the Eternal City. I recommend you to watch it.

"Naked" (1993)

Primate

When I was 18, I have watched «Naked» for the first time and it didn’t impress me much. Back then, I was just not experienced enough. For the last 9 years, I have gained some life experience, and I have decided to give the film the second chance. This time, I have understood more, and we could call «Naked» «A Tale About a Real Asshole».

The world is full of assholes, some of them are quite dangerous and some of them are not. Johnny is also an asshole, but it is supplemented by a huge education. Because of the education, this bum-looking asshole, who is still psychologically a teenager, have a good tongue and ability for short-term seduce. In the beginning of the film, Johnny almost rapes a woman and flees to London in a stolen car.

After hitting London, John breaks into his old girlfriend house, who shares a house in a desolate area of London with two flat mates. Louisa is not too delighted by her ex, but Sophie develops a crush on John. An intruder won’t dodge an ability to sleep with a cute girl, but John doesn’t want to hear anything about serious relationships, so, he walks away to night London.

Reaching night London, Fake Diogenes meets the inhabitants of the city’s gutter: a homeless Scot Archie and his girlfriend; an intelligent night security guard Brian; a lonely poor drinking woman, who is desperate for a lay and other colorful characters. Nevertheless, Johnny still have certain brakes.

Those brakes are made not out of goodness, but of elementary caution. Johnny understands that he could do rough sex, but if he rapes a woman, he won’t escape justice easily. Also, if Johnny would impose himself on a girl and she would kick him out after tiring from his intellectually offending speeches, he would have to go, because police won’t to be too kind to a smelly bum. That is why, he is cruising for helpless victims with low self-esteem.

Despite that, the night London streets are cruised by other Johnnies with Porsche and gold credit cards. Jeremy-Sebastian is Johnny, who is wearing Saville Row-tailored clothes and who is drinking Veuve Cliquot. His good looks enable him to seduce almost every girl and his money enables him to «be himself» and feel the complete impunity.

Who is an asshole? It is a man, who have complete disregard for public morale, politeness, who treats others scornfully and spits on all other rules. Almost every teenager toys with asshole behavior and it is excusable at the age of 15. Nevertheless, after reaching the age of 20, you need to use your brain and learn to live, or pretend to live, by the rules of society. But because of the different circumstances, the certain people, in the best case, are becoming eternal teenagers and others, in the worst cases, are becoming parasites as Johnny and Jeremy.

Such Johnnies and Jeremys are inhabiting every city and everyone, who watched «Naked», will recall an acquaintance with such man. Mike Leigh was able to shoot a film, which would be understood in every country, and David Thewlis was able to pull off the almost impossible – to play without any fake a real-life pseudointellectual asshole.

"The Sheltering Sky" (1990)

Tunner, we're not tourists. We're travelers

In foreword to 1998 rerelease of «The Sheltering Sky» Paul Bowles wrote not-so-praising words about screen adaption of this book, done by Bernardo Bertolucci, summarizing them by those words: «But the less said about the film now, the better». Bernardo Bertolucci, recalling the experience of making «The Conformist» - an adaptation of the same titled novel by Alberto Moravia, said, that sometimes necessary to «betray» the book in order to make the film faithful to it. «The Conformist» was such good betrayal, that it even surpassed the book. Could we say the same words about «The Sheltering Sky»?

In the early 1980s, Bernardo Bertolucci was in a state of the great artistic crisis and in order to overcome it, he went to LA in order to fulfill his old dream – to make an adaptation of «Red Harvest» by Dashiell Hammett. After spending four fruitless years in LA, Bertolucci went to, back then the most unusual place, China. In this country, he regained inspiration and made «The Last Emperor». And the most important of all, after visiting China Bertolucci started again to love the West. So, the story about a couple, which travels to Sahara, in order to repair the marriage, seemed interesting to the Director.

Paul Bowles book is quite hard to adapt as a standard two-hour film. «The Sheltering Sky» is full of stories and important dialogues, which all should be adapted in the film. And, finally, the director must picture the alienation of two Americans in alien and hostile Sahara, which destroy any intruder. Before watching, I thought, that Bertolucci would be able to pull it off.

In the beginning of the novel, an Arab Smail tells Port Moresby a parable about three Arab girls, who are desiring to drink tea on the highest dune of Sahara (which were not, strangely, integrated in the film). They were able to get to the highest dune of Sahara and have decided to get a little sleep before tea. A few weeks later, a passing caravan found three dead girls and their cups were full of sand.

Port and Kit Moresby are the representatives of NYC intellectual bohemians. Port is a composer; Kit is a playwright. Their feelings have ceded and Port, hoping to breathe new life into dying marriage, convinces Kit to take a trip to the Northern Africa. Tunner forces himself as a companion on the trip, and they start their trip. After getting rid of Tunner, Port takes Kit to the heart of Sahara, but he gets a typhoid fever.

In the beginning of «Lawrence of Arabia», Diplomat Dryden tell to Lieutenant Lawrence the following words: « Lawrence, only two kinds of creatures get fun in the desert: Bedouins and gods, and you're neither». Port thinks that the desert would purify him, and after crossing it with Kit, they would emerge as new people, who love each other. In order to achieve this, Port even agrees to forfeit his identity. In reality, the desert would do anything to destroy the aliens.

Sadly, Bernardo Bertolucci was not able to completely portray the ideas of Paul Bowles. While watching, you constantly feel, that the film lacks something, which makes it great, compared to «The Last Emperor». The Director focuses on a theme of combatting the family crisis and basically kept out such themes, as the said «three sisters» parable, clash between European, American and Arab culture and threw away a certain amount of secondary characters.

Another substantial weakness of «The Sheltering Sky» is a choice of an actress for the role of Kit. While Debra Winger is assisted by John Malkovich, she is quite OK. But in the third part of novel, Kit steps out and Debra Winger is not too convincing.  That is why, the process of Kit’s spiritual degradation is not portrayed good enough. Despite that, the other actors filled their roles quite convincingly.

Despite the flaws of meaning, the form is beyond all praise. Bernardo Bertolucci was able to capture a very beautiful shots of desert , which is ruthless and hostile for strangers, and views of shabby Arab towns, full of flies and beggars. Ryuichi Sakamoto soundtrack deserves a separate mention. His music tunes a viewer to a right wave, which is never quite fully emerges.

The best films of Bertolucci are visually and intellectually stunning. Sadly, this time, the visual thing has prevailed over the intellectual one, and that is why the film is weaker than the best films of Bertolucci. Despite that, I don’t agree with Paul Bowles critique and I consider this film as worthy of watching, but I recommend you to read the book before that.

"Highlander" (1986)

There can be only one

When we were kids, we all watched «Highlander» TV-series and played in Duncan MacLeod. It were fine TV-series, which quality, nevertheless, depreciated (I don’t remember after which season). Before the TV-series, there were two «Highlander» movies. The second part I watched long time ago and even back then it didn’t impress me too much. Rewatching the first «Highlander» was a bit of cautious experience.

Why? Because there are so many examples, when our favorite childhood/teenage film do not pass the time test and after rewatching them we have only one question – «What was so special about this film». On the other hand, certain films, as my favorite «The Last Boyscout» pass the time test and you want to rewatch them again and again.

What a makes a banal action movie cool? Perhaps, a hero’s charisma. Remember the black humor and philosophical dialogues of Bruce Willis and his verbal clashes with Damon Wayans, and also charismatic villains. «Highlander» also passed a 33-year test. What makes a story about immortals, who chop each other heads, so attractive?

The story becomes attractive, if you add here some fine actor, including, sadly, underperformed Christopher Lambert. Only a year ago he played a thief, hooligan and vagabond Fred in «Subway», which enabled him to get a first main billing in the English-speaking film. His Connor MacLeod is not an unnatural superhero; he is a man.

The Immortal is a creature with superpower and immortality doesn’t brings out a joy. Such life leads to sadness, because you cannot have children and you will always lose your loved ones. Some Immortals turns into monsters, but Connor MacLeod saved his humanity. He helps people, saves children from the SS and kept an ability for love and compassion, but he would pay anything in order to become human again.

His nemesis – Kurgan, - is a complete antipode. He lost his sanity because of the immortality and superpower and turned into the monster, which could kill anyone and crash anything. If he wins, the humanity would enter the Dark Age. Clancy Brown also did an outstanding job in creating a villain, which terrified all kids.

Another characters also did a good job. Sean Connery is tantamount to a nice Scottish single malt, which you could keep for ten years in your bar and it would get better and better. Sean Connery did a good job in portraying Ramirez – a tutor of Connor, which taught him new rules and the main thing – always to stay human and apply your new power responsibly.

While rewatching all films you could expect a disappointment with old special effects. Yes, multiplication is not so cool in computer age, but sword fights and stunts are still quite impressive, so just don’t pay attention to old special effects.

You should not forget the music. Queen wrote a music, which enabled to make the fight atmosphere. While listening Who Wants to Live Forever, the spectator would feel sadness with Immortals, who can’t keep their loved ones; Don’t Lose Your Head prepares you for the battle scenes and etc. It is very sad, that Freddie Mercury died, but his music lives forever.

The Director did an outstanding job in assembling the spare parts, which resulted in a great and rewatchable film. Don’t afraid to be disappointed and rewatch «Highlander» and after that, to make it even better, listen to A King of Magic by Queen!

The Entertainer (1960)

Why should I care?

An interesting episode was depicted in the second part of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain. In the mid-1950s, a young playwright John Osborne wrote «Look Back in Anger». The play was very successful, but Lawrence Olivier was not too impressed. Afterwards, Arthur Miller visited London and asked Olivier to accompany him to the theater.

After the play, Arthur Miller and Lawrence Olivier went backstage to meet a young playwright. There, astonished Miller saw how Olivier begged Osborne to write something for him. The Great Baron Lawrence Olivier begging some boy! Nonsense! Nevertheless, «The Entertainer» stepped out on the London stage and the shortly thereafter, the film was made.

Great Britain finished the Second World War as a formal winner, but lost its imperial power. Before the 8^th of May, 1945 there was the British Empire, but after that there was only Great Britain. For a while, the British ruling class tried to behave like Empire, but the Suez Crisis destroyed all illusions.

«The Entertainer» starts in the first days of the Suez Crisis, The author shows a grey and tired Britain, whose habitants has lost the faith in a future of their country. The more successful are dreaming of immigration, the less successful are trying to speculate on the remains of the Imperial Glory. The film is set in some crisis-struck coastal British town.

«The Entertainer» shows not-so-good adventures of Archie Rice – a fifty-year old music hall artist, who has been avoiding the income tax man for twenty years. Son of a music hall legend, Archie presents a primitive show, which quickly loses its popularity. One day he got the chance – he seduced a young girl, whose wealthy parents are ready to bankroll his new show…

As I have written before, the author portrayed Britain in decline. That is why, the decay of music hall is one of the main themes. Music hall was one of the characteristics of the Edwardian Era – the peak of British glory and power. In the mid-1950s, music hall, along with Britain, was in decline.

Whatever you tell about Margaret Thatcher reforms, her reelection in 1983 was guaranteed by victory in the Falklands War, which gave back the imperial pride to the British. The Suez Crisis also began on a high note. Archie Rice Show is again popular, his father got an invitation for comeback, son of Archie – sergeant in the British Army, - will be soon home.

Despite all of the bravado, in 2017 we know the final of the Suez Crisis. In the first time for many centuries, Britain was subdued by another Empire. The fall would affect every hero of the film. The post-Suez Britain became a satellite of the US. The new values dominated everything, including music hall.

Truly, why should I care, it I lost already.

Watch this films, maybe it will make you think.

The Childhood of a Leader

It's sort of about the birth of a megalomaniac

The Childhood of a Leader is a loose adaptation of Jean-Paul Sartre's short story The Childhood of a Leader and John Fowles's novel The Magus (plagiarizing Wikipedia). Sadly, I have read the Sartre’s story long time ago and I haven’t read the Fowles’s novel. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the film draws inspiration from another famous book.

In 1931, an Italian journalist and writer Curzio Malaparte wrote Coup D'etat: The Technique of revolution. Near the end of the book, the author wrote about dark, psychic and sexual nature of dictatorship. The author also noted the main traits of dictators – envy. Curzio Malaparte stated that dictatorship is not merely the form of rule, but also the most complete intellectual, political and moral manifestation of the envy.

The Childhood of a Leader portrays the formation of a dictator. You should also note, that Malaparte has written that dictators have a strong feminine side. This thesis is illustrated by distortion of Prescott’s gender identification – he wears a dress and has long hairs. Also, Prescott suffers from enuresis, which is the part of the Macdonald triad.

The psychoanalysis claims that the person is formed by interaction with parents. First of all, the film drops hints about illegitimacy of Prescott. The parents of Prescott are portrayed as cold and indifferent persons, who are more interested in themselves, than in their son. Even the first minutes portrays Prescott as a «strange child» (to put it mildly).

The director narrates the storyline as three caprices. If the first caprice (throwing of stones in the church) looks as an innocent childish prank, the second and third caprice vividly portrays the dark inner world of Prescott. The picture of the film is also very gloomy – the devastated French village, poor houses and old maids.

The not-so-good reviews and synopsizes claims that formation of Prescott was dictated by witnessing his father in drafting the Versailles accord. But I think that it is a product of not-so-attentive watching. In my opinion, the director used a classical trick – contrast. The director portrays how at the seemingly triumphant time for the democracy grows a beast, who will demolish democracy once and for all.

Watch this film and maybe you will not laugh, when you will read that «1 in 5 CEOs are psychopaths».

"'71"

Jesus Christ, British army's been dying up there with shit flying at them from all angles for the last 10 years, and you're not impressed? (The Long Good Friday)

The conflict in Northern Ireland (the so-called «The Troubles») spanned for more than 30 years. Despite the fact, that this conflict is less known than The Vietnam War, it got own place in history and lest thousands of mentally and physically traumatized residents of the United Kingdom.

Gary Hook is a new recruit to the British Army. He hopes that his platoon would be sent to the West Germany, but instead they are transferred to Belfast. The capital of Northern Ireland is divided between Catholics and Protestants. During one of the search missions, one soldier loses his rifle and Cook, accompanied by another soldier, tries to regain it. They are severely beaten by angry mob and the Harry’s comrade is shot by IRA gunman. Gary evades the capturers, but the path to a base is very dangerous…

An ex-documentary director Yann Demange offers an impassionate insight into the 1970’s Northern Ireland. Without taking sides, The Director shows the young Nationalists and Catholics who are dreaming of growing up and acquiring rifles; pubs, where bombs misdetonates; bloody feud between senior and young wing of the IRA.

Such war does not have anything in common with wars about which we read and watch. In Belfast, there are no trenches, barbed wire, artillery or air strikes. Instead of it, the city is one big battlefield, where enemy is everywhere. The Northern Ireland conflict is fought by «unconventional» means – the extortion, the blackmail, the informants, the death squads doing dirty work on both sides.   

Nevertheless, even in such war, there are some people who save some traces of humanity. A retired Army medic along with his daughter shelters and helps a wounded Hook, despite the real threat of the IRA retaliation.

There is no place for justice in the real world. In a normal circumstances, nobody would not be interested in rescuing the peace of meat. The only reason for the hunt is simple – Hook knows, by coincidence, some valuable information. Nevertheless, after rescue there will be no commendation or punishment for the guilty. Mentally traumatized Gary Hook would be just thrown back into the world and maybe he will learn to live there again.

«’71» is a sincere film after which you want read some literature on The Troubles.

8/10