Inside Job (2010) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4) : Here’s what happened

Posted on May 21, 2011 by kaist455

  Regardless of how much you know about the global financial crisis in September 2008, you will be outraged while watching “Inside Job”, Charles Ferguson’s incisive documentary which explains in detail why and how this complex incident happened. It was not a bad luck at all. US finance industry had already been destined to that enormous disaster for a long, long time, and the people who could prevent it had neglected it while getting the profits for themselves. Even after the global economy as well as US economy was severely damaged as a result, nothing is changed much in the system, and, this is quite frightening, it still keeps going on as before.

Like his previous work “No End in Sight”(2007), an equally sharp-edged documentary about how the George W. Bush administration disastrously ruined Iraq from the beginning, Ferguson gives us the calm, penetrating presentation on how US finance industry has systemically ruined the economy it has fed on. The film only presents us the interviews with the various financial experts and others along with the helpful explanations and data showing how the system “works”, but the message behind them is quite clear to us. The crisis happened due to the lack of proper regulations of the companies, and US really needs the regulations for preventing the next possible crisis, which might be more catastrophic than the recent one.

The documentary tells us about the long history of mutual relationships between Washington and American finance industry. The deregulation of finance industry has been favored since the Reagan administration in the 1980s, and this policy has never been changed during last three decades. Wall Street people got the big chance to earn lots of money thanks to that. One interviewee recalled that one of his friends, a stock trader working at Merrill Lynch during the 1970s, had to do an extra part-time job for supporting his family. In the 1980s, that guy’s annual income became more than six figures.

With such a boom like that, the crash was bound to happen, and it did happen in the late 1980s with many American people losing their precious savings. However, the stock traders and the executives of Wall Street did not learn any lesson from that. While similar financial disasters kept occurring, they have continued to push the US government to more deregulation for more money. The billions of dollars from Wall Street have been put into Washington to block any attempt to reform the financial system. Both Republicans and Democrats get the money in their respective pockets. The former executives or board members of the leading financial companies get the new jobs at the Department of Treasury or several federal committees that are supposed to supervise and regulate their industry. They even have corrupted the academic integrity. Several leading economists are paid well for supporting deregulation through their writings and consults – and their universities are also paid well, too. Some of these scholars agreed to be interviewed by Ferguson, but they cannot give him nice answers when facing the hard questions thrown by him.

The business became more cancerous as the time went by. With merger and acquirement, the banks got bigger and more influential than before – and they got greedier. With the rise of computer technology, they introduced a new financial instrument called “derivative”, which, unlike what they said, caused more harm to the market. In addition, as another part of deregulation policy, they made the government lift the limit on the leverage of the banks, which meant they could lend money far more than they actually had.

The film gives us a very lucid picture of how this malignantly unregulated system, so called “Securitization Food Chain”, was operated at full force for maximizing the profits while the things were accelerated toward the catastrophe. The banks wanted to lend more money to the debtors most of whom were not so eligible for the mortgage, so they borrowed more money from the investment banks like Goldman Sachs. The investment banks then packaged the debts into Collaborated Debt Obligation(CDO), which was then sold to their investors as the products, which were, by the way, rated ‘AAA’ by the rating agencies such as Moody’s(they said later that they were not responsible for their “opinions”, by the way). And then there was credit default swap; the investment banks bought the insurances for their lousy CDOs from the insurance companies including that infamous AIG. The insurance companies knew they insured the bad products, but they did not care because the money was coming anyway. Plus, it was possible to insure one CDO in multiple directions – another very good chance for them to earn more profit. When AIG was turned out to be unreliable, my god, the banks even insured against AIG’s collapse.

The system was literally out of control, and so were people in it, who, intoxicated with the ecstasy from profits, carelessly spent their money for living in obscene luxury. Richard Fuld, the CEO of that notorious Lehman Brothers, flaunted his vast wealth quite arrogantly before the crisis. Private jets were more like the toys to him; he had six along with one helicopter. There was a private elevator only for himself in his company building; when his driver called, the elevator was ready for bringing him straight up to his office on the 31st floor. And he did not give damn much about how his people worked below.

Gambling, drugs, strip clubs, and prostitutes were abounding among the people of Wall Street, and they were taken for granted. Kristin Davis, who ran a high class prostitution ring for them near Wall Street (at least $1000 for an hour), reveals us a lot about how irresponsible they were, and her words are supported by other interviewees. It is sort of amazing that they managed to work in their companies in the next morning after such hedonistic excess during night.

In the end, as many experts had foreseen, all hell broke loose not only to them but also to us. AIG and Lehman Brothers were collapsed along with many finance companies. The stock price plummeted. The money from thousands of investors was vaporized. The debt of US government was doubled, and the American society became far bleaker than before with increased unemployment rate. The global economy had lost trillions of dollars as a consequence, and lots of people around the world also lost their jobs.

In spite of all these damages, the history will probably repeat itself sooner than we think if we are not careful. Many people called for the financial reform after the crisis, but even the Obama administration did little for that. The same kinds of people from Wall Street were hired in the government again, and, as many of you know, the US government gave these rotten finance companies the huge amount of tax money for bailout. As Ferguson said in his Oscar acceptance speech several months ago, none of executives responsible for the crisis were indicted for what they did; they instead got the huge bonus as usual.

“Inside Job” is a detached but angry documentary demanding the changes with the good arguments based on facts and data. As it bitterly admits through Matt Damon’s narration, the changes will not happen easily due to the obstacles alarmingly grown out of proportion – but there must be changes no matter what. As French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde says in the film, the financial industry is a service industry; it should serve others before it serves itself. Otherwise, it will be no more than money-sucking cancer.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The China Syndrome (1979) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4) : It can happen – and we know that

Posted on May 16, 2011 by kaist455

 While I heard the alarming reports keeping coming from the Fukushima I nuclear power plant, that unforgettably intense sequence from “The China Syndrome”(1979) immediately came to my mind. The earthquake occurs without warning. The power plant is automatically shut down. They get a problem with the level of the coolant. The plant is on the verge of nuclear meltdown. The catastrophe of epic proportions may happen as a consequence.

 The term “China Syndrome” metaphorically refers to the dangerous consequence resulted from such containment failure. Because of its hot temperature due to the radioactive heat emitted from fission products, the nuclear fuel can rupture its metal case even when the power plant is shut down. If it cannot be cooled even after that, in the worst scenario, they cannot stop the molten fuel from penetrating several levels of the containment system. Hypothetically, once it gets out of the system, it will continue to melt through the earth crust and core; it will eventually reach to the other side of the earth opposite to US – China(However, geographically, it is the Indian Ocean, not China). Actually, that is impossible, but, once the molten fuel is leaked out of the system, the radioactive materials will be inevitably spread around in the air and on the ground; that will cause huge damage to the environment around the plant.

 While effective as a cautious story about the inherent danger in one of main energy sources for our civilization, the film is a superb thriller that has lost none of its strength to tighten us. The tension comes from the main characters as real as us watching them, and it keeps mounted as we grasps the urgency of the situation in which they struggle as much as they can do. We become nervous about the possible danger they try to uncover – and we come to really care about what will happen to them for we know that their careers, and perhaps their lives, are at the stake.

 They are just doing their jobs like any other days when they come across the incident. To a local TV reporter Kimberly Wells(Jane Fonda), the nuclear power plant seemed like a mere deviation from her usual subjects such as how to celebrate birthday or animals in zoo. She arrives at the Ventana nuclear power plant, meets a PR guy, and does the routine news coverage with her friend and cameraman Richard Adams(Michael Douglas). While they look around the plant, they also have a nice opportunity to observe how people work in the control room from the observation gallery.

 And that is when the incident begins. After trembled by a sudden earthquake, the plant quickly goes into the emergency mode. The shift supervisor Jack Godell(Jack Lemmon) calmly handles the situation. It seems everything will be all right at first, but he and his colleagues soon realize they have just made a big mistake. Because the needle in the panel indicating the coolant level in the reactor was stuck above, they thought the coolant level should be lowered. Now the level is dangerously too low, and the meltdown will happen if they don’t do something. It may sound preposterous, but I learned later that such a case really occurred in the past.

 This sequence is handled with disturbing stillness that effectively conveys the possible dour outcome they may have to face if they are not lucky. Most of what we see is mainly comprised of the panels monitoring this perilous situation, but the wordless nervousness among the people in the control room is palpable. While watching this moment, I thought about how people at the Fukushima plant tried desperately to control their disastrous situation. The outcome was far worse, but they did the best they could do.

While told that nothing serious is happening by a PR guy, Kimberly senses that something serious is going on in the room though she can hear nothing, and so does Richard. He surreptitiously turns on his camera and films the whole incident with her tacit approval. She has wanted to make a her big break with this(although she is popular, she is tired of meandering around ‘soft news’), but her plan is soon blocked by her superiors, who are afraid that they will be sued for violating the law. Kimberly follows their decision, but Richard decides to do something, and that causes the headache to Kimberly and others. However, all of them soon realize they have big news they cannot easily throw away.

 Meanwhile, on the other side, Jack Godell begins to face another difficult situation. While Jack Lemmon can be your funniest man as shown in his collaborations with Billy Wilder and other comedies, he can also be a conflicted everyman you cannot easily forget in the movies such as “Save the Tiger”(1973) and “Glengarry Glen Ross”(1992). In one of the best performances in his illustrious career, Lemmon presents us a man who has devoted to his work for most of his life. When he says he cares about his power plant, there is genuine sincerity. He has the firm belief in the system he belongs to. When he accidently come across Kimberly at the bar, he emphasizes to her how the nuclear plants is meticulously designed and thoroughly tested and maintained,

 But he does not tell her everything. There could have been the catastrophe to affect whole Southern California, but the danger was prevented under his supervision. In his view, nobody needs to be disturbed by the incident for nobody got hurt. The system works, so it is better to move on while learning an important lesson from the error he and others committed.

 However, as a dedicated professional, he cannot ignore the second vibration that he felt some seconds after the earthquake. The investigation committee concludes there is nothing wrong with the plant, but his suspicion turns out to be right. He finds the leak from the pump. He also finds that the X-rays showing the welds of the pipes are all copied from a single X-ray picture. He is convinced that the plant is unsafe and needs the examination. But his colleagues and superiors turn a blind eye to the problem for it will jeopardize the company management.

 From this point, the film shifts its gear into more suspenseful mode. Godell is visited by Kimberly and Richard, and he reluctantly becomes their whistle blower to provide the evidences. There are some people who are not so pleased about this, and they will do anything to stop them. There is a particular moment that reminded me of the doubtful circumstance surrounding the death of Karen Silkwood, whose real-life story later inspired Mike Nichols’ Silkwood(1983), another good movie about a whistle blower who tries to expose the safety problems in the nuclear power plant.

 Directed by James Bridges, the movie has lots of verisimilitude thanks to his approach reminiscent of the naturalistic style of Sidney Lumet’s films. From the opening sequence showing the work process at the broadcasting station, it puts us right in the story. The circumstances and places are depicted as real as possible. The absence of score intensifies the acute reality shown on the screen(they initially had the original score composed by Michael Small, but they wisely chose not to use it). Maybe I am overpraising it, but I can say “The China Syndrome” is one of the best Sidney Lumet movies not directed by him.

 The film’s unobtrusive style serves Lemmon and other talented actors well. Jane Fonda was Oscar-nominated along with Lemmon for one of her strong performances in the 1970s. Like Lemmon, she convincingly depicts her character’s transformation along the plot, and the scene where she cannot help but lose her objectivity as the reporter in front of camera is heartbreaking. Michael Douglas, who also produced the movie, competently plays the character different from what we usually associate with him now. As Godell’s close friend and assistant Ted Spindler, Wilford Brimley gives a subdued but impressive acting that started his long supporting actor career. Although he cares about his friend, Spindler does not want to get himself in trouble and chooses to go along with others – but there is a breaking point where he decides that enough is enough.

  There are some dated aspects in the film due to social changes and technological advancements during last 32 years, but it still effectively raises the question on the safety of nuclear power. It is one of well-known movie trivia that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident happened less than two weeks after the movie was released in US. But there had been several accidents more serious than that, and, as we know, there also have been other big and small cases after that – including the Fukushima I nuclear accident, which is considered be the second largest nuclear accident after Chernobyl.

 It is possible that many things can go wrong even with best efforts and intentions. There are the factors beyond our control like the earthquake and tsunami, and, as the movie points out, there are also human errors. Can we live with that risk? Whether you like it or not, the nuclear power will be one of main energy source options after we run out of oil, and that question will not be easy to answer.

 Overall, “The China Syndrome” is a terrific thriller that not only makes you think about its subject but also makes you agitated a lot with the chilling possibility in its subject. Rarely do movies activate an alarm in my head with pure gut-chilling effect, and this is one of few ones capable of that. It can happen; and we know that too well.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Certified Copy (2010) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4) : Are they copying a relationship?

Posted on May 10, 2011 by kaist455

 What are they doing? After watching the interactions between two characters for a while, you will be bound to have that question at the certain point in “Certified Copy”. While being deceptively simple, the movie shows us the ambiguous but curious dynamic between two strangers(or were they?), whose inscrutable sides are intriguing enough to lead us to some thoughts on the reality shown on the screen.

 At first, it can be accepted that they are strangers to each other. A British art historian James Miller(William Shimell) is visiting Italy for promoting his latest book “Certified Copy”, which delves into the matter of the original and copies. In the opening scene, he talks about his book and the motive behind it to the audiences including a French woman(Juliette Binoche), who comes to the lecture later than him. While her son gives little annoyance to her, she talks something to Miller’s Italian translator in his ear, gives him a note, and leaves the place.

 Later, Miller visits the antique shop run by that unnamed woman(according to IMDB, her name is Elle but her name is never mentioned in the film). After having some conversation with her, he accepts her offer, and they spend the afternoon together. They go to a nearby town by her car. They visit the museum in that town. They drop by some cafe. They walk around the town. They continue to talk and discuss about his book and its theme. And the relationship between them seems to be transformed into more intimate than we thought at first.

 The turning point of this subtle process comes around during the cafe scene. While Miller gets out of the cafe for answering his cell phone, she is approached by the cafe owner, a middle-aged lady, who assumes she and Miller are a wife and a husband. She does not correct the misunderstanding while complaining about her husband’s indifference to the cafe owner. She tells Miller about this amusing misunderstanding when he comes back. After leaving the cafe, she behaves as if he were her husband. He goes along with that. As the time goes by, they begin to resemble a married couple.

 While observing their role-playing, we begin to ask ourselves: were they a couple from the beginning? I do not think so due to several reasons shown during the first half of the film. But, even if we settle on that matter, we still cannot be entirely sure about what they feel or think throughout the movie. Their role-playing can be more or less than the flirtation to both of them, but there is always something enigmatic about their interactions, and the film does not have any explanation for that.

 Both Juliette Binoche(she won Best Actress award at Cannes Film Festival for this movie in last year) and William Shimell, are engaging enough to hold our attention while never giving us any clues that might ruin the tantalizingly elusive side of their relationship. Binoche shows her versatility in going through several different, contradicting modes without awkwardness. Shimell, who has no previous acting experience before this movie, ably supports her with his calm performance. Their nuanced performances always show one thing while suggesting the other things, even when their situation goes a little more melodramatic when they talk about the problems in their, uh, past.

 The movie sometimes feels a little bit heavy-handed whenever emphasizing its theme through the characters, but the director Abbas Kiarostami’s effortless approach compensates for its weakness. Through careful long takes and close-ups, he subtly increases our intimacy to his characters. Even we are wondering about who they really are, we are still close to them none the less.

 Some of Kiarostami’s notable works were introduced to South Korea around the time I got interested in movies. One interesting thing about “Through the Olive Trees”(1994) is that, as a movie about making movie, it is fictionally framed into his another movie “And Life Goes On,..”(1992), which is fictionally connected to his another work “Where is My Friend’s Home?”(1987). While they can be appreciated individually, they also make the interesting picture of the reality and the fiction as the copy of the former.

 That aspect is extended to the difference between original and copy questioned in “Certified Copy”. In the middle of the movie, the characters see the painting in the museum which turned out to be not the original but has been valued as its copy. That ignites another discussion between them: can copy be as good as original? Miller thinks so; he argues that with Leonardo DaVinci’s “Mona Lisa” as the example. In his view, “Mona Lisa” is basically the copy of some woman that existed in the past, but people value it anyway. And, in biological view, that woman was the complex copy of human genomic materials mixed with some variations. If so, can it be said that there is no original in the world, after all? And are we watching the copies of one relationship in this movie?

 It throws these questions and others to us without providing answers for them, while confounding us with the amorphous relationship that can be interpreted in more than one way. With its vagueness, “Certified Copy” could have been a distant intellectual exercise, but it is a fascinating movie with good performances and subtle direction to draw our interest to its enigma and thoughts surrounding it. I am still not so sure about who they are, but this is a well-made copy that made me very curious about what I saw on the screen.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

05/08/11 – A Cat, Geese and ducks, and flowers

Posted on May 8, 2011 by kaist455

Photos taken at my campus on 05/08/11

The sun is shining. The sky is blue. The Avian gangs are still terrible. And the flowers are everywere.

Posted in Photos | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Source Code (2011) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4) : Clever SF thriller within repeated 8 minutes

Posted on May 7, 2011 by kaist455

 Above all, “Source Code” is something I welcome without hesitation: a smart SF thriller with efficiency and skills. Its scientific settings are a little too shaky and ambiguous, and, to be frank with you, I had to operate some parallel thinking process in my brain while following the simple storyline because of that reason, but the movie confidently, and repeatedly, moves with clear direction. It is compelling enough to hold our attention, and we accept several preposterous aspects in the story, and its relatively short running time seems shorter that it actually is.

 Colter Stevens(Jake Gyllenhaal) suddenly faces the disorienting situation. As far as he remembers, he, as an American Army helicopter pilot, is doing his duty in Afghanistan. But now, strangely, he wakes up to find himself on a commuter train heading to Chicago. He sits opposite to the woman he has never met before in his life, but she talks to him as if they had been acquainted with each other. Moreover, he discovers that he is currently not occupying his own body. He is Stevens played by Gyllenhaal in our view, but he is seen as someone else in the view of others on the train.

 What is happening to him? He soon gets the answer. Few minutes after the train passes the last station before Chicago, the bomb somewhere in the train explodes. Everyone dies as a result, and then he wakes up in a far different situation. He is confined alone inside the place resembling the spacecraft module. And he still cannot remember why he ends up in such a dark, solitary place like that.

 He begins to grasp his current reality through the communication line linked to the world outside. According to Colleen Goodwin(Vera Farmiga) and Dr. Rutledge(Jeffrey Wright), Stevens is in some special government facility where medical technology, computer technology, and quantum physics are combined together to develop the cutting-edge technique for sending the subject to a certain point of the past. There was a bombing incident on that train, and, utilizing the brain from one of the victims, some history teacher named Sean Fentress, they can send Stevens to the 8 minutes before the incidents(that’s the limit) again and again. It is his job to find the bomber whose terror is merely a prelude for the bigger plan targeting Chicago downtown(by the way, where do they get the information about that?).

 Several questions naturally arise from this shaky premise. At first, Source Code, their software program for sending Stevens to “the past”, looks like the virtual reality based on the remaining information from Fentress’ brain, but it seems more like parallel worlds discussed in quantum physics(A voice cameo by Scott Bakula from “Quantum Leap” is one of small nice touches in the film). Stevens can freely do whatever he wants in limited time, so it may be possible to create alternative timelines.

 But don’t he and others on the train exist only in the electronic world inside supercomputer? As the scientist supervising the project, Jeffrey Wright lends some believability to the story although its science is still hiding behind some scientific mumbo-jumbos. I have no idea about how it will be useful or how it will be applied to other kinds of situations, but his character is utmost serious. He is willing to get the success while knowing its cost, which, incidentally, he can ignore without much problem.

 Nevertheless, the movie is very enjoyable for Ben Ripley’s screenplay does not lazily depend on the main mystery of its mechanistic plot. As many people have already pointed out, it is a thriller version of “Groundhog Day”(1993), and it does a lot more things inside the limits it sets on its story. While trying to find the bomb and the bomber amid repeated 8 minutes, Stevens also gets intimated with the woman with whom his mission always resumes. In addition, like us, he begins to be suspicious about his confounding state. He eventually learns of his limits, and he chooses to exert his free will in the limited range.

 In the end, like the movie, he does lots of things in 8 minutes. I have some doubts about how it is possible, but I can say Jake Gyllenhaal is convincing as the hero going through lots of tandem repeats and accompanying developments. As the woman whom he comes to care about, Michelle Monaghan gets a basically thankless job, but she follows his steps nicely. We believe the feelings growing between them along the cycling plot. Vera Farmiga gives a subtle balanced performance as the officer who may know more than what she tells to Stevens and us; the movie leaves behind certain possibility behind her character to provoke another interesting thought.

 The director Duncan Jones previously made an impressive debut with a very good SF movie “Moon”(2009), and he makes another good SF movie again. If you have watched “Moon” before, you will surely notice lots of common aspects shared by both movies, including the hero alone with repetitive assigned mission to do in the limited space, and serious questions on the individual rights and freedom in the system.

 “Source Code” is a lean, clever, and efficient thriller skillfully handled by people who knows what they deal with, and I found it very entertaining in spite of several visible faults in the story. While enjoying it, my mind went back to one of the interesting moments I experienced during my tour in Chicago in last year. One day, I was fortunate to observe the actors and crews of “Source Code” making one scene for their movie in the Millennium Park. Although only few minutes are included into the movie, it took more than one hour for them to prepare and shoot the scene. They tried several ways – different camera positions or various camera movements(I immediately sensed from the camera movements that the movie was not a urban romantic comedy) or some alternative scenes that I will probably come across through DVD(or blu-ray).

 In retrospect, it was fascinating, but, at that time, I was frequently bored. While sitting on the bench and waiting for capturing Gyllenhaal and Monaghan on my camera, I spent my time with some curious articles in Chicago Sun-times along with new reviews from Roger Ebert. While watching the movie at the theater on this Thursday, I could ask myself a variation of that famous question said by Mr. Ebert’s dear friend and former colleague Gene Siskel: “Is the movie I am watching as interesting as watching the actors and crews working together for more than one hour?” I can easily answer that right now. Yes, and it is more interesting.

 

P.S.

1. Some renowned South Korean critic felt sorry about that history teacher Sean Fentress. So do I. Rest in peace, Mr. Fentress, although you can’t, partially.

2. I go to the downtown by commuter train during my tour in Chicago. While watching the commuter train on the screen, I learned 32 million dollars budget makes a lot of difference; the interior looks more polished and comfortable than in real life.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Sunny (2011) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4) : Seven Girls – Now and Then

Posted on May 7, 2011 by kaist455

 Probably my dreadfully gregarious older cousin sisters can identify with the characters in “Sunny” far more than me because most of them were high school girls around the 1980s. Even though it was one of turbulent chapters in South Korean history, they sometimes have some private time for reminiscing about their adolescence with nostalgia, smile, and, finally, little bit of bitterness generated from the gap between hopeful past and pragmatic present.

 In case of me and other audiences, we may not be the most ideal audiences for this film. I think some of jokes probably eluded me while watching it. But, what the hell, “Sunny” is as funny as it can be to average audiences, and it is one of the funniest South Korean comedies of this year. While there are some weaknesses such as the running time a little bit too long, the movie is a feel-good movie stuffed with small and big laughs, and it does not thankfully resort to cheap tears in the mandatory third act melodrama.

 The movie has seven main characters, and one of them is Na-mi(Yoo Ho-jeong). She is a conventional South Korean mom, and her family live in some nice apartment building that probably costs around half million dollars. She prepares the breakfast for her husband and her high school daughter in early morning. After they leave the house, she maintains the house alone just like every other day. Her life is affluent thanks to her husband, and the bond between her and her family is not that distant, but she can help but feel like weariness in her life.

 It sounds pretty much cliché, doesn’t it? Well, the fresh air imbued to her mundane life is also another cliché in the story, too. When she visits her mother in the hospital, she comes across one of her old high school friends, Choon-hwa(Jin Hee-Kyeong), who was the leader of the sisterhood circle named “Sunny”. Choon-hwa is a terminal patient with few months to live, so, by hiring the private detective agency, Na-mi decides to find their other friends for reunion, whom she has not met for quite a long time. While she meets them one by one, the movie looks at the memorable episodes in their past one by one. They were all young, hopeful, and confident in those days, but now, as realistic middle-ages ladies, they have to live with various degrees of disappointments and frustrations in their lives.

 The outcome is already is set from such a setting like this, but the director Kang Hyeong-cheol knows how to make an effective comedy out of this familiar premise. The surprise is one of the crucial factors in making us laugh, and he constantly ambushes us with funny moments, which spring from the screen here and there for 2 hours. Kang is deft in both big and small laughs. While my personal favorite is its making a small fun of trashy South Korean TV dramas, one of the biggest laughs comes from the big street demonstration sequence, where Na-mi and her friends have a big showdown with their rival circle in an unexpected background they do not care about much – until the things get a little bit more serious.

 We South Koreans audiences all know the 1980s was a very violent time due to dictatorship as shown in several recent South Korean movies including “Memories of Murder”(2003). The film indeed reminds us that fact through one of supporting characters, and one of our famous dictators on TV, but its approach to our past is indirect and lighthearted. For example, in one scene, the riot police waiting for the command in the night alley function as the cheerleaders for young Na-mi’s romantic moment with a lad she has a crush on. You can say that the movie ignores the darkness of that period, but, don’t we all remember our past, if not all of it, in rather rosy way? And I have to point out that demonstration scene is, like other good scenes, so funny that the screening room was instantly filled with healthy laughter even though most of them knew how hard that time was.

 Furthermore, the movie also works as a drama about the strong bond between these seven ladies. By re-awakening their past, their mundane, or miserable in some cases, lives begin to be enlivened. That change results in another funny sequence in the public park where they are determined to recreate their good old tough time. Their behavior is silly in their age, of course, but we understand they have never felt so good like that for many years, so we smile with them. Because one of the characters is dying, the story is logically shifted to the area of melodrama in the third act, but the movie earns the tear for we come to care about them while having big laughs – and it does not forget making us laugh and smile even at the end.

 Kang Hyeong-cheol’s previous(and his first) movie was a hit comedy “Speedy Scandal”(2008), a funny comedy which I gave 2.5 stars for resorting to end the story with cheap melodrama and an “Idiot plot” based on misunderstandings that can be solved only with few words. Nevertheless, while disappointed a lot, I pointed out how its first one hour made me laugh a lot in my Korean review. Amidst lots of lousy South Korean comedy movies that attempts comedy in pathetic ways, it was quite refreshing to see the work of the director who really knows about essentials of comedy: performances, music, pace, and so on. He did not do anything groundbreaking, but he came to me as a fresh talent in South Korean comedy.

 And, boy, he is defter in his second movie. The most remarkable thing about the screenplay co-written by him is that, besides being a very hilarious story, it successfully juggles not only seven main characters but also their younger counterparts and the supporting characters surrounding them. The characterization is broad, but each of main characters is given distinctive features. Though you forget their names while following the story, it is very easy to tell apart each of them from others. While occupying the relatively small places in the fringe, the supporting characters are well-organized for the comedy and drama in the story. Brimming with liveliness, they sometimes are more than what they seem to be. Although Na-mi and her daughter look like estranged mother and daughter, we can infer that they are connected to each other more closely than we thought. The film never explains, but it implies the interesting things possibly lurking behind the story and the characters, as exemplified the delinquent girl who torments young Na-mi and causes the grimmest moment later in the story.

 Under Kang’s competent direction, the movie fluidly goes back and forth between the past and the present. The obligatory transitions never feel awkward, and I was amused by how corny the 1980s was compared to our time(but I am sure the younger generation in the 2010s will regard my generation in the 1990s in the same way). The soundtrack, mainly consists of the popular songs in South Korea during the 1980s, serves the story and emotions inside it precisely. The adult performers are matched well with the young performers. Their ensemble performance is simply fantastic; all of fourteen actresses are uniformly good, and we can sense that they are really having a good time.

 “Sunny” is a immensely loveable comedy. Released in this weekend, the film is being loved by both critics and audiences in South Korea at present. Though I am afraid some of you cannot understand some parts due to its inherent cultural gap, its typical story and storytelling device can be common enough to draw you inside the past the characters joyously shared and wistfully remember(heck, I can name at least half a dozen ‘now and then’ movies made in Hollywood right now). It is generic, but it does its hefty job far better than I initially expected. Folks, this is the most delightful energizer I’ve seen from South Korean movies in these days.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4) : Into the artworks from the Stone Age

Posted on April 30, 2011 by kaist455

 There are several reasons why Werner Herzog’s documentaries are usually interesting. One of the reasons is that, while being one of the most entertaining directors in the world, he is also one of the most amusing documentary narrators. He is dead serious while deeply musing on his subjects. His narration sometimes swerves into unexpected directions, and we get some deadpan moments to savor later. In “The Encounter at the End of the World”(2008), one of the most memorable moments is when he asks an expert about “gay penguin”.

 Also, he gives us wonderful moments to remember in his works, and he did it again with his latest documentary “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”. From the famous cave that has been nearly inaccessible because of preservation, he vividly captured the uncanny atmosphere of its interior along with the beautiful artworks created by the nature and men. The movie immerses us into this amazing world, and I think the movie is worth my 1-hr bus ride to Jeonju International Film Festival in this weekend.

 In 1994, a cave was discovered on the limestone cliff by three speleologists in southern France. It turned out that Chauvet Cave, named after one of the speleologists, Jean-Marie Chauvet, was like a big time capsule from the Paleolithic age. Although many caves were found and known for their archaeological value around that area, Chauvet Cave surpasses them all in many aspects. Besides lots of cave paintings drawn on its walls long time ago, there are many other valuable traces from the Paleolithic era including fossilized animal bones. Furthermore, because the entrance of the cave had been blocked by a rock for more than 20,000 years, they had been preserved in a nearly perfect condition for quite a long time. Based on the radiocarbon dating, it is accepted by most scientists that the cave has the oldest cave painting. It also has the oldest human footprint from around 25000 years ago, which belongs to some child.

 Since its discovery, the general public has been not allowed to enter, and few people got the access to the cave for academic reasons. In case of Herzog, he got the special endorsement from the French minister of Culture, but the rules were strict. The shooting time per one day was limited to only several hours. The crews only consisted of Herzog and three peoples including the cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger. They had to wear special shoes and clothes for not damaging the preserved environment inside. They always remained in the established path while shooting, and there were some areas they were not allowed to enter due to the high concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, which is very toxic to human body.

 In spite of these limits, the sights captured on the camera are awe-inspiring. There are various kinds of animals from the ancient times depicted on the walls, including horses, rhinoceros, bears, and mammoths. Some of the paintings provide very helpful information to paleontologists. For example, they were not so sure about whether male cave lions, one of the extinct species, had mane, but, thanks to one of the paintings in Chauvet Cave, now they know the answer.

 The cave paintings are not just valuable as artifacts; they are also valuable as artworks. The paintings shown in the film are the good evidences that our species found the creative way to communicate visually with others during the early chapter of human history. Not only they have information, but also they have styles and feelings and characters. The depictions of moving animals in the paintings are remarkable; some of them might be the first early step of the path leading to the moving pictures – or movies. There are red hand prints on the cave surface. You can see that they all belong to the same man because of the distinct feature of his little finger. In addition, the nature has silently decorated the cave with plenty of calcites, stalactites, stalagmites, and other exquisite mineral structures. Along with the remains suggesting some religious rituals, they create the elusively mythical mood in the cave.

 Compared to that dreadful 3D cave adventure movie “Sanctum”, the film gives a much better 3D experience inside cave. Although he does not like 3D much, Herzog decided to use 3D technique for he thought it was effective way of capturing how the painters used the bulges and contours of the walls in their works. 3D effect still has its own distracting aspects in his film, especially in the scenes outside the cave, but it works successfully in the cave as much as he intended. Through 3D effect, we can fully appreciate the surfaces in the cave as well as the 3D map of Chauvet cave made by the computer. The light sources were limited due to regulation, but Herzog creatively used that limitation to convey us how the paintings looked to the ancient painters who only had torches at their time.

 There are some funny moments in the film, and, while I watched the movie in the screening room full of audiences, and they frequently laughed because of his offbeat questions and remarks. The first laugh came from the former occupation of one of scientists interviewed in the film. We were tickled by Herzog’s droll comment when one expert clumsily tried to reproduce the primitive hunting method. By the way, I have never thought “Baywatch” can be used for the comparison with the ancient artworks, but, come to think of it, we have always been motivated by sexuality from the beginning, haven’t we?

 And then there is an interesting closing chapter waiting for us at the end of this engaging experience. It seems redundant(it is titled “postscript”) but I have to say it is as quirky as those iguanas in his previous movie “The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans”(2009). I don’t know why Herzog added it to the movie, but I can say it is a nice footnote to the marvelous images from the special cave rarely shown to us.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Near South (Chicago,IL) (04/09/10)

Posted on April 26, 2011 by kaist455

 
These photographs were taken in Near South area of Chicago,IL on April 9th, 2010.
Posted in Chicago, Photos | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Leaves of Grass (2009) ☆☆☆(3/4) : Crime and Philosophy – and also Marijuana

Posted on April 23, 2011 by kaist455

 As far as I know, “a mixed bad” is a negative expression, but I think that is an appropriately positive one in case of “Leaves of Grass”(2009) for its seemingly disjointed combination of crime story and philosophy. The movie throws such discrepant stuffs into its plot that they can actually make a good shopping list: Latin, marijuana, Socrates, crossbow, poetry, bong, Heidegger, family, catfish, Whitman, parallel lines, menorah, swastika, murder, and so on.

 It sounds like a mess, but the film manages to mix them together, and the end product is somehow eclectic in an offbeat way. Sometimes there are profound moments to intrigue us, and then there are absurd ones to tickle us, and then there are sudden bursts of violence that jolt us. The movie freely goes between them as it wants. Some of you may be flabbergasted by its frequent shift of tones along its wacky plot.

 My initial response was not so different from that when I watched it in last year. I found it charming none the less, and, when I revisited it later, I found it still weirdly charming. The plot is dopey, and sometimes jarring, but the movie follows it rather well. It is balanced nicely between seriousness and goofiness, and, from its well-defined characters, it generates small, enjoyable moments I come to cherish mildly now. Even its hurried conclusion in the third act has an amusing irony considering how the trouble is initiated for one of its two heroes.

 

 His name is Bill Kincaid(Edward Norton), an Ivy League classical philosophy professor teaching at Brown university in Providence, Rhode Island. He is near the highpoint in his career as a scholar. His lecture is popular among students at the campus. Some female student is so smitten with him that she is willing to offer the pleasure to him carnally as well as intellectually to his dismay. People at the Harvard law school also like him very much. They even consider establishing the new department to recruit him. In addition, his recent paper is published in the American Philosophy Journal.

 And then past he put behind a long time ago suddenly calls upon him. He was from Little Dixie, Oklahoma, and he has been estranged from his “eccentric” family since he left his hometown. As the twin brother of Brady(he is also played by Norton), Bill takes a plane to Oklahoma immediately after the urgent message about Brady is delivered to him.

 However, that message is the first step of his ex-con brother’s shaky scheme to solve the current problem of his. Brady is a illegal marijuana cultivator, and he needs his brother’s little help for resolving the conflict between him and the local drug dealer Pug Rothbaum(Richard Dreyfuss). Brady’s girlfriend Colleen(Melanie Lynskey) will soon have a baby, so he wants to get out of this inconvenient situation as soon as possible. All he asks Bill to do is that Bill acts as Brady for some time while Brady and his friend/accomplice Bolger(Tim Blake Nelson) visits Pug in Tucson for settlement.

 

Because the film is a crime comedy reminiscent of the Coen brother’s convoluted comic plots, it is easy for us to predict that this plan will not work as they hope. The things get complicated with shocks and absurdities, but the movie takes its time in a relaxed mode. Several interesting moments between the characters come along the plot. They reveal more about not only Bill and Brady but also other colorful supporting characters surrounding them.

 Above all, Brady is a lot more than what he seems to be on the surface. As his brother says later, he is indeed a “colossal f*ckup” who is frequently incorrect with grammars and needs the Webster dictionary to understand what his brother writes, but he is as clever as brother. Not only he does a first-class plant breeding for his illegal product, he also devises and builds an impressive hydroponic system for the greenhouse. And he has some artistic taste in case of decorating his bedroom, although it is not for everyone(including me).

 

 Personally, I find the one scene particularly amusing. In that scene, the brothers have some short talk about one of Bill’s papers. While admitting he does not understand all, Brady makes a coarse but succinctly insightful comment: “You all hardly ever write about topics. You write about what some other fella wrote about the topic.” When I once took Philosophy 101 during sophomore year, a young unorthodox lecturer told us about such an aspect of South Korean philosophy academia. I guess that tendency is universal around the world.

 But the movie also respects Bill, though many laughs come from his reactions to the incidents happening around him. While growing up with his brother under the parents who immersed themselves in the counterculture in the 1960s, Bill desired the guidance for his life unlike his brother. That is probably why he chose to study philosophy – to find the way to live with a purposeful measure of control amid the randomness of the world. He also chose to distance himself from the family. He changed his accent for being assimilated into his academic world.

 He says in his lecture that the balance needed for a happy life is illusionary. He emphasizes to his students that the life can be screwed suddenly. But he experiences his knowledge in a hard way. Once he thinks his life is in control, the things keep getting out of his control. He can’t believe his eyes when the man he incidentally met before suddenly comes into already complicated situation later. Even when he tries to apply a good advice to the real world, the result is far from what he expects.

 As the twins that cannot be more different from each other, Edward Norton gives terrific duo performances. It is relatively easy to put two characters played by one actor together on the screen in these days, but the success ultimately depends on the characterization and synergy, and Norton neatly accomplishes his task. While creating the distinctive characters, he also reminds us that they are biologically based on the same genetic makeup. The chemistry between his performances is entertaining enough to forget to detect several techniques for having them together on the screen.

 The supporting actors including the director/writer Tim Blake Nelson are the other factors that contribute to the film’s quirky charm. Keri Russell is warm as a high school teacher/poet to whom Bill is quickly closer within a day, and so is Melanie Lynskey. Her role is small, but you can understand what Brady sees from her. Richard Dreyfuss obnoxiously but effectively chews his single scene as a pugnacious dealer, and Susan Sarandon gives a short but juicy performance as Bill and Brady’s mom who enjoys the life at retirement home in spite of being at least 12 years younger than other occupants. She seems to smoke marijuana as before, but she is a non-nonsense mom to her grown-up sons in spite of that.

 

 Nelson is more familiar to most of us as a reliable supporting actor, but he is also a good director and playwright. While active in his acting career, he has made few but good films, including “O”(2001), an interesting hybrid of Shakespeare tragedy and modern American high school drama, and “The Grey Zone”(2001), a chilling World War II drama about the people forced to deal with the impossible situation for a very slight chance of survival at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

“Leaves of Grass”, his fourth movie, is more lighthearted than his previous works. Nelson was born and raised in Oklahoma, and the movie’s background has considerable authenticity. He also incorporated the small Jewish community of Oklahoma as a crucial part of the story; that makes his movie look like a distant Okie cousin of the Coen Brothers’ “A Serious Man”(2009), another funny story about the university professor who suddenly finds himself in deep trouble.

The film reaches to seriousness from time to time in surprising ways. Bill’s lecture at the opening scene is quite engaging to hear even if you are not familiar with the metaphysical knowledge. Although I am a guy who is a lot closer to its formal opposite, physical science(When someone says a movie has philosophies, I usually ask what the hell it means), I can say we rarely come across such a lecture like that in the movies – it is really about something.

 Later in the story, Bill visits Rabbi Zimmerman(Maggie Siff) for some important matter. When he expresses his confusion, she succinctly points out to him the main cause of the problems in our world. We are intelligent organisms, but we are far from being perfect. We are still biologically animals, and, while trying to solve our problems, we overlook that fact sometimes. Like some characters desperately attempting to solve their own problems in the film, we mess up matters and ultimately contribute to the chaos in the world. We naturally want to find some orders or rules to be relied on, but the chaos continues to reign thanks to us. Maybe it is better to accept the randomness in the world because you cannot prevent it no matter how you try to prepare and control. And help repair the world with others, above all.

 “Leaves of Grass” is a good film with smart sides to interest us. I have to admit that it is probably an acquired taste for some audiences, but it is worthwhile to try it at least once. In the middle of movie, there is the conversation between two characters in the car. It is just a casual talk, but it is interesting enough to induce some thoughts. Good philosophical conversation is never hard to understand even though you cannot completely get it.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Jane Eyre (2011) ☆☆☆(3/4) : Another nice adaptation of a classic gothic romance

Posted on April 23, 2011 by kaist455

 The sky is gray with darkened clouds. The forest is shrouded in creepy fog. The wind is mercilessly blowing on the barren moor. And there is a huge, ominous mansion owned by the unpleasant man who has the equally unpleasant secret hidden inside somewhere in the house. And our young heroine comes to this brooding mansion to find herself attracted to her employer who is definitely someone who must be approached with a certain degree of tactfulness.

 Charlotte Brontë’s classic gothic novel has been loved by many, has been imitated by many including that pathetically cheap imitation called “Twilight”, and, above all, has been adapted for many, many movies and TV miniseries since the 1910s according to IMDB. In the advertizing leaflet printed in South Korea, they say “Jane Eyre” (2011), the latest version directed by Cary Fukunaga, is the 21th adaptation, but IMDB say it’s the 20th adaptation. With so many versions, such a mistake can be forgiven.

 Like its many predecessors we have seen before, the latest version follows the basic plot of the novel except some notable changes(To be frank with you, I have seen only two versions: 1943 version starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine and the 1996 version starring William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg). As an orphan, young Jane Eyre(Amelia Clarkson) had a hard time at the house of her mean aunt(Sally Hawkins). Her aunt hated her, and so did Jane. She was sent to the harsh boarding school worthy of a Dickens novel, where she would spend most of her childhood and adolescence under the sadistic supervision by Mr. Brocklehurst(Simon McBurney), who did not like Jane’s defiant attitude from the first time they met each other.

Soon we meet adult Jane, now played by Mia Wasikowska. Although she is alone in the world outside the school as before, she is willing to lead her life despite her inexperience. She is hired as a governess at Thornfield Hall, the huge mansion where she teaches a young French girl named Adele(Romy Settbon Moore). The house environment is not exactly sunny, but Adele is a likable girl, and the housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax(Judy Dench) is kind to Jane.

 She does not meet her employer, Mr. Rochester(Michael Fassbender), on her first day at Thornfield Hall, for he is usually not in his house. Some time later, he returns to his house, and, after their accidental meeting in the foggy forest and the following formal meeting at his brooding private place, the mutual feelings are generated in the hearts of both. However, bound by the customs and conventions of that time, both hesitate to reveal their feelings. In addition, strange things happen at night. There is something disturbing hidden in the mansion – something so shameful that Rochester chooses to do the wrong thing to Jane for maintaining his position as a gentleman rather than reveals his secret to her.

 The screenplay writer Moira Buffini makes some deletions and changes in her adaptation. Her modifications work well in most cases. One of the notable changes in the film compared to other versions is that Jane’s childhood is more condensed through flashback. As a result, the film has relatively less power compared to other versions in that part(for instance, 1996 version, regarded by many as one of the weaker versions, was memorable with Anna Paquin as Young Jane), but it proceeds more quickly into the main plot instead, while pointing out well how hypocritically sadistic some people were at that time.

 And there is notable improvement with Jane’s story with the pastor named St. John Rivers(Jamie Bell), who saves her in the opening scene where she wanders around the forest and the moor against harsh weather in quite a distressed state. St. John Rivers part has been always like the baggage that must be dealt with for the adapters, but Buffini uses Rivers as a tool to emphasize the feministic point Brontë indirectly made in her novel. In the movie, Rivers is a kind man, but his views on women and marriage is as conservative as the conventions at that time, and Jane will not agree to his opinion as a woman who wants to lead her life independently. If she marries someone, that is because she chooses him, not because she follows him.

 The director Cary Fukunaga’s previous work(and also his first work) was “Sin Nombre”, a sad, gritty drama about the illegal immigrants who try to cross US-Mexico border at all costs. The world and the characters are much, much different in “Jane Eyre”, but Fukunaga knows about the hidden emotions causing the characters drawn to each other, as shown in his previous movie. And he is a talented director. In rather restrained approach, he lets the good production design, the good costumes, and the good actors to tell the story while maintaining that familiar atmosphere of gothic romance. Even when warm spring comes to Thornfield Hall with sunshine and clear sky, there is always grayness in the screen.

 Again, some of you probably complain that Mia Wasikowska’s Jane Eyre is not as plain as described in the books, but, what the hell, has Jane Eyre ever been that plain on the screen and TV? Quite different from her previous appearance in “Alice in the Wonderland” and “The Kids Are All Right” in last year, Waskiowska, 21 at present, is natural as a young, intelligent woman on the verge of adulthood. She makes the maturation of her character very believable, and the chemistry between her and Michael Fassbender is low-key but appropriate for the film’s atmosphere.

 Fassbender is as handsome as the other versions of Mr. Rochester we have seen, but he is brooding and callous enough to be a sullen man who is, in objective view, a liar and cad who deeply hurts Jane’s heart(we get a pretty much good idea about who Adele is in one scene, by the way). As Mrs. Fairfax advises to Jane, it is rather wise to maintain some distance from such a man. Judy Dench is also good as a prudent housekeeper; she does not say everything, but we know she knows everything happening in the house.

 Will there be more Jane Eyre movies? I think so, for Fukunaga’s version is not an ultimate version due to several flaws deemed to be inevitable in the adaptation process. Sometimes the movie feels like a summarized version of the book from time to time, and you will be a little disappointed if you expect it to be a passionate melodrama. None the less, this is surely one of the better end products we can get from the classic gothic romance novel.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment