In addition to these two reviews today, I'm also introducing a new part of the website. Look on the main reviews page for the most ambitious (read idiotic) project I've taken on for this job.
Born Into Brothels
Review by Jon Waterman
***
A British photographer heads to Calcutta for her latest project. She has lived with the women of the red light district for some time now, getting to know them artistically and personally. She’s also gotten to know their children. Determined to give these children, who are doomed to life as a prostitute (if female) or black market merchant (if male), some semblance of hope. She begins teaching them photography. It soon becomes apparent how truly different the world can look through the eyes of a child.
Zana Briski (the kids call her Auntie) and behind the camera only Ross Kauffman collaborate to bring you this interesting documentary. What come across better than anything else are the personality traits of all the children. For the most part, all of them are given equal screen time, because their individual plights and experiences are varied enough to warrant that, despite coming from the same destitute area. The movie does a wonderful job of showing us the individual rather than just an individual in a particular situation. I didn’t see enough of that on Zana’s side. It always seemed like a project. So much time was devoted to the kids that her personality didn’t shine through enough to complete the circle. Also, I didn’t see as much group cohesion as I would have liked. Maybe the camaraderie between the kids just wasn’t there to capture to begin with.
Unfortunately, the parents and grandparents are largely absent in the film, despite the massive impact they have in real life. There are plenty of insightful interviews with the children. There has to be equally poignant material that could be derived from talking to their parents. That shouldn’t be such a hard request to fill considering how close the filmmaker is with them.
Lastly, I want to mention the photography. Just like with everyone, some of it’s good and some of it’s not. Perhaps this is harsh, but I think some of the screen time devoted to showcasing the photography in stills with musical accompaniment should be cut – especially since we’ve seen most of the photographs prior to that during the class session discussions and when the work is exhibited at galleries. Overall, they know how to work the camera and produce some pretty amazing shots.
I suppose my biggest problem is that the movie is only 85 minutes long and it deserves to be a mini-series. There are so many avenues and so many factors that go into what ultimately happens to the kids that deserve to be explored, but can’t due to time constraints. Plus, who after watching this film wouldn’t want to see regular progress reports and updates? Ultimately, the documentary is too unwieldy and too broad for such a short time span. I want more.
++++++++
Monster’s Ball
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
Hank works as a Corrections Officer just as his father did and just as his son does. But the career isn’t the only thing that’s been passed down through the generations. There’s also a legacy of hardness and abuse. This is a legacy that leads the “weak” Sonny to kill himself. Leticia works as a waitress. Her husband was sentenced to death and executed by the state (at Hank’s hand). She can’t afford rent or desperately needed car repairs. When these two paths of turmoil cross, the winds of change could produce a devastating tornado.
Sorry about the stupid imagery and obvious metaphors, but I figure if the film thinks it can get away with it, then so can I. Ya know, the movie was going along fine (not superbly or amazingly, but fine) until those stupid little shots of the birdcage pops in. Marc Forster’s direction was edging on pretentious as it stood. This was just icing on the cake. The editing of that particular scene was too frantic for it’s own good as well. Jump cuts in that situation are fine (again, only fine), but the rapidity in which they occur made the scene more disjointed than it should have been.
I’m not sure if it’s the script (by first timers Milo Addica and Will Rokos) or just the acting – probably both – but the whole thing didn’t seem all that believable to me. Hank’s (Billy Bob Thornton) character development is contingent on him being such a horrid person during the first half or so. He did some terrible things to be sure, but it always appeared like his father drove him to that. I never got the sense that he was the evil person that was spelled out for us. So, as such, his character never really made much of an impact. The rest of the characters were rather stiff, too. Heath Ledger (Sonny) needs to pick an accent. Peter Boyle (Hank’s dad) drives the story somewhat, but it feels like his only real purpose is to make the audience hiss and boo. Sean Combs (Leticia’s death row husband) could not be drier. Halle Berry (Leticia) plays the grief card pretty well, but the performance shows little nuance or tact.
The story itself works. It’s functional and smooth. The pacing is good. However, the overall execution (no pun intended) makes any positives on the plot side of things ineffective. The whole film just left sort of a bad taste in my mouth. It was okay, but it probably should have been great. If the film dared to go farther and ask more questions and confront more issues, it would have been more satisfying. Nothing seemed to be accomplished, unfortunately. But hey. You get to see boobies.
Born Into Brothels
Review by Jon Waterman
***
A British photographer heads to Calcutta for her latest project. She has lived with the women of the red light district for some time now, getting to know them artistically and personally. She’s also gotten to know their children. Determined to give these children, who are doomed to life as a prostitute (if female) or black market merchant (if male), some semblance of hope. She begins teaching them photography. It soon becomes apparent how truly different the world can look through the eyes of a child.
Zana Briski (the kids call her Auntie) and behind the camera only Ross Kauffman collaborate to bring you this interesting documentary. What come across better than anything else are the personality traits of all the children. For the most part, all of them are given equal screen time, because their individual plights and experiences are varied enough to warrant that, despite coming from the same destitute area. The movie does a wonderful job of showing us the individual rather than just an individual in a particular situation. I didn’t see enough of that on Zana’s side. It always seemed like a project. So much time was devoted to the kids that her personality didn’t shine through enough to complete the circle. Also, I didn’t see as much group cohesion as I would have liked. Maybe the camaraderie between the kids just wasn’t there to capture to begin with.
Unfortunately, the parents and grandparents are largely absent in the film, despite the massive impact they have in real life. There are plenty of insightful interviews with the children. There has to be equally poignant material that could be derived from talking to their parents. That shouldn’t be such a hard request to fill considering how close the filmmaker is with them.
Lastly, I want to mention the photography. Just like with everyone, some of it’s good and some of it’s not. Perhaps this is harsh, but I think some of the screen time devoted to showcasing the photography in stills with musical accompaniment should be cut – especially since we’ve seen most of the photographs prior to that during the class session discussions and when the work is exhibited at galleries. Overall, they know how to work the camera and produce some pretty amazing shots.
I suppose my biggest problem is that the movie is only 85 minutes long and it deserves to be a mini-series. There are so many avenues and so many factors that go into what ultimately happens to the kids that deserve to be explored, but can’t due to time constraints. Plus, who after watching this film wouldn’t want to see regular progress reports and updates? Ultimately, the documentary is too unwieldy and too broad for such a short time span. I want more.
++++++++
Monster’s Ball
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
Hank works as a Corrections Officer just as his father did and just as his son does. But the career isn’t the only thing that’s been passed down through the generations. There’s also a legacy of hardness and abuse. This is a legacy that leads the “weak” Sonny to kill himself. Leticia works as a waitress. Her husband was sentenced to death and executed by the state (at Hank’s hand). She can’t afford rent or desperately needed car repairs. When these two paths of turmoil cross, the winds of change could produce a devastating tornado.
Sorry about the stupid imagery and obvious metaphors, but I figure if the film thinks it can get away with it, then so can I. Ya know, the movie was going along fine (not superbly or amazingly, but fine) until those stupid little shots of the birdcage pops in. Marc Forster’s direction was edging on pretentious as it stood. This was just icing on the cake. The editing of that particular scene was too frantic for it’s own good as well. Jump cuts in that situation are fine (again, only fine), but the rapidity in which they occur made the scene more disjointed than it should have been.
I’m not sure if it’s the script (by first timers Milo Addica and Will Rokos) or just the acting – probably both – but the whole thing didn’t seem all that believable to me. Hank’s (Billy Bob Thornton) character development is contingent on him being such a horrid person during the first half or so. He did some terrible things to be sure, but it always appeared like his father drove him to that. I never got the sense that he was the evil person that was spelled out for us. So, as such, his character never really made much of an impact. The rest of the characters were rather stiff, too. Heath Ledger (Sonny) needs to pick an accent. Peter Boyle (Hank’s dad) drives the story somewhat, but it feels like his only real purpose is to make the audience hiss and boo. Sean Combs (Leticia’s death row husband) could not be drier. Halle Berry (Leticia) plays the grief card pretty well, but the performance shows little nuance or tact.
The story itself works. It’s functional and smooth. The pacing is good. However, the overall execution (no pun intended) makes any positives on the plot side of things ineffective. The whole film just left sort of a bad taste in my mouth. It was okay, but it probably should have been great. If the film dared to go farther and ask more questions and confront more issues, it would have been more satisfying. Nothing seemed to be accomplished, unfortunately. But hey. You get to see boobies.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home