Reviews

One mind, one consciousness, two worlds. At the beginning it is clear that we are going to take a trip into isolation. Linda Hanson has it all. A loving husband, two healthy young children, and a prosperous life with not that little time on her own. Seems like a pretty good picture of a well-off middle class home. Something we've seen on film like ten thousand times before, which is probably why the film isn't treated that good.

When suddenly we find ourselves in a different world, seeing it all from Linda's point of view. Although she knows a lot more than the rest of the people, there is still something that remains unknown. It's because of this "unknown" thing that Linda is seen as a mentally unstable person, although she remains completely normal. It delves her further into loneliness, and this is what I think the film is best about.

The middle-class perspective probably makes it easier to relate to her and also to get absorbed into hear fears. After all, like it or not, in the back of our heads we're all probably daydreaming of a life similar to her's. But this "unknown" thing, a premonition, remains. It doesn't only make her look frail in front of others, but it can make her feel bad even about her self.

I think that this is a good film about loneliness, isolation and some of the darkest fears we have. And how no living standard can make these feelings go away. It's about the fear of loss. The loss of love. It's no coincidence that in the end, she remains a widow. The important thing is that this time, she accepts it differently. She accepts it.

Or should I say how much does it really matter to us? I think it really should. You know I've thought a little about all the historically based films I've seen in recent years and how careless I've been about the facts that appear (or should appear) in them. But before seeing Apocalypto I looked into some of them.

Gibson basically put 600 years of time into a few days. I've read that the classical era of the Mayas was in the 9th and the 10th century. That's also when their civilization actually went into decline. All the major centers in Mezoamerica were falling apart, and to this day it isn't exactly clear why it happened. But it's known that it was a partial decline. So by the time the Spanish conquerers came (the beginning of the 16th century) there was nothing like that going on. No decline. The conquerors destroyed them entirely.

So that means that the starting quote, that you can only conquer a civilization once it's decline began from 'within' is more or less a hoax. And a huge discrimination. People bitterly protested against the film in Gvatemala. It's also known that the Mayas were by far not as savagery as they appear in this film.

I mean what was Gibson trying to do? A little more than two years ago he made The Passion of the Christ. He often said that the reason for doing it was very personal. Some kind of cleansing through religion. Was he afraid to show us that religion can also become a reason for (ethnic) cleansing? That it's not always just good and purifying, but it can also play a part in brutal deeds? Who knows.

But if we ignore the facts (which can't be done lightly) I think that the film is pretty high on an artistic level. The Maya language makes it feel pretty authentic. The brutal scenes do make it kind of hard to watch but they contribute to the dramatic events towards the end. That's when 'Paw' runs away from his capturers. The scenery also makes you feel as if you were sent back five centuries, and gives a really stirred up feel for danger. It conjures a kind of race for survival perception.

It's just too bad that it's so incorrect, that even it's main purpose becomes meaningless. It just can't reach it by definition. Historical facts really should matter here. So I won't rate it. There's just too much ambivalence here. If it were more correct I'd probably gave it a 7 or even an 8, but it just seems too cynical to do that. So I'll stay cool this time, which seems a better option than thoughtless appraisal that some people are giving it. For the wrong reasons in my opinion.

First, why I think it's called Babel (Babylon). Check out the 32nd parallel of geographical latitude. It goes right from beneath the US-Mexican border, thru the mountains of Morocco, and thru Japan's most southern island Kyushu. And geographical coordinates are a system which was invented by the Babylonians. The point of it is to express every location on earth.

I think that's what the director was mainly trying to do. I don't think that it's just a dumb coincidence that the characters are at the places they are. The director was trying to express different places and meanwhile showing that there's a common dimension within them and people. The dimension isn't just latitude, but perhaps fate. On all three places people are experiencing something very similar.

The tag line goes: If You Want to be Understood...Listen. The ancient tower of Babel is also a very important allegory. It's known that it's used in Judeo-Christian context to explain the existence of many different languages and races. In the allegory God destroyed the tower to prevent the efforts of humans to create a unified language and race. The point of the film isn't that we have to learn different languages to understand each other, but we have to LISTEN.

The poor Mexican woman will get sent back 'home', because nobody listens to what she's saying. All because of her nephew running away from the boundary patrol. She is very much misunderstood and accused. At the next location an innocent man get's beaten up and an innocent boy gets killed, no fault of theirs. All because of one pointless shot. They are both misunderstood and accused. A girl in Japan is as lonely as can be, because she cannot speak to 'ordinary' people. They don't listen. She is getting accused with filthiness, although she wants something completely pure. She is as much as others, misunderstood and accused.

If we won't listen carefully, innocent people will keep getting hurt. I think Iñárritu prepared us a very humane story. Something that's very apt for consideration. I guess that's what makes a movie great. That it's worth to consider it, instead of seeing and forgetting all about it. And by now this is honestly the best movie I've seen from the previous year. I wish there were more...

........ +4/5 ........

The Constant Gardener was made after a novel written by John le Carré. I just couldn't believe that he's the same man who wrote the novel for The Russia House, because there were several times when I actually thought of that movie during this one. One lucky guess, I guess. The Constant Gardener is at first concentrated at a couple, Justin Quayle and Tessa Quayle. He's a diplomat, she's an activist and both are present in a remote area of Northern Kenya. Tessa or 'Tess' is quite a sensitive and bold woman, which is clear from the beginning when she openly criticizes Britain's passivity and suspicious standards of morality. Considering the country's foreign policy of course.

Her bold and uncompromising character is pretty much the reason why Justin devoted his attention to her in the first place. The technique isn't quite new, but the exchange of past and present events in their private lives really anchors you into their relationship. Then comes the journey to Africa, specifically Kenya where Tess is really anxious to escort her husband. They both seem to be well assimilated to it as we already see them living there. This is where the trouble start. Tess is getting more and more involved in the local pharmaceutical affair and finding out more, without her husband ever even suspecting a thing. She does this with the help of her husband's colleague, Sandy Woodrow. What she finds out doesn't stay hidden because of her informing a few high officials in Britain. Despite the warnings, Tess refuses to keep her voice down about the local community being an experiment for global pharmaceutical companies. That is pretty much the reason for the mysterious murder of her and her good friend Arnold Bluhm.

Justin is now left alone and shocked, not having a clue about what happened. The same goes for the viewer as the rest of the mystery is yet to be revealed by Justin's relentless search. The most important part of the movie is the unraveling of that single mystery. Director Fernando Meirelles, well-known for his previous film City of God, draws the techniques of zooming, camera shaking and using vivid colors to the max. This is what makes this film more exciting and thrilling to watch. The story is quite complex and at times too rapid to comprehend all that is being said. It kind of reminds me of JFK because it's stampede throwing of all sorts of facts. Nothing wrong with that, it actually makes the story look more intelligent and dynamic.

Of lots of espionage and political thrillers released in the past decades, this one could be considered good not because of it's plot, but because of it's execution and the authentic presentation of completely different societies. It really is one of the rare movies to make the constant change of surroundings look quite untroubled. Adding really fine performances should do the trick for me but I didn't find the story as thought provoking as I hoped I would. I think that all of the techniques and tricks used by the director worked as a disguise to make us forget what the reason for killing Tess was. We already figured it out. You might think that there's a grand conspiracy waiting to unfold itself, but you are left a little disappointed. The Constant Gardener is mainly a very good thriller, enriched with some great performances and stand-out direction as well as editing and credible presenting of different environments. A specific extra is the all-embracing sensation of guilt for all the suffering of mankind. Something rare in films today. It missed an 8 within a hair. 7.5/10.

....... - 4/5 .......