Offside

Jafar Panahi, Iran, 2006
4 out of 4 stars

Iranian women, as the text at the beginning helpfully explains to American audiences, are barred from attending sporting events, which of course means that this film is about a handful of young women, who, for different reasons, try to sneak in to particularly important soccer match that will decide whether or not Iran will make it to the 2006 World Cup. It bears noting, by the way, that much of this film was actually shot in the background during the game (although you won't see much of it).

The film, then, is about gender in Iran, but it is also about class, as the often-hapless soldiers who become the reluctant guards of these seemingly privileged city women come from rural, provincial backgrounds, and its theme inherently leads to a consideration of nationalism as well. We know that there are “bad guys,” so to speak, in the Iranian system, but for the most part those figures stay offscreen; instead, we have two mostly sympathetic groups who both have legitimate grievances. The director chooses to present both of these sides rather than telling us what to think. It might be tempting to chalk all this restraint up to an aspiration to see the film screened in its own country and not just in international markets (it didn’t work), but I think that the presentation of the film is actually quite sincere and insightful, albeit very subtle (I'm sure plenty of the nuances escaped me from my vantage point).

Like all the other handful of Iranian films I’ve seen (almost all of which were banned domestically by Iranian censors), this one is filmed in a neo-realist style with long takes and a cast of mostly non-actors. Ths one, however, is undoubtedly my favorite of the ones I’ve seen, as it is the first one with an overall comic tone, which is pretty rare not just in Iranian film but in any neo-realist film. While it does start slow, the confrontations are amusing while also thought-provoking, and the characters are quite engaging, but the comic nature of the film does not mean that important questions are being dodged; although Persepolis was a good film, I felt like this one was in many ways more enlightening and entertaining. Even if you’re skeptical about this kind of film, I would recommend you give it a chance.

Source: Sony DVD
16 March, 10:17 PM

Super Size Me

Morgan Spurlock, USA, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

I’m gonna assume that everyone has heard about this movie, and as such, I’m not gonna spend any time describing it for you. The first thing I will say is that it probably benefited from really low expectations on my part. Intellectually, I still object to Spurlock’s methodology; it’s the film version of what a public radio panel recently referred to as “extreme sports writing,” and I think that documentaries should not, in general, be documents of stunts. Furthermore, It’s hard not to be bothered by the futility of the whole thing, and it’s also hard not to wonder what would have been the point if, say, he had managed to get himself permanent kidney damage.

My greatest critique of this film, prior to actually watching it, was that it dramatized the obvious, and therefore must not have any real purpose; in this respect, I believe myself to be proved wrong. The truth is that what is obvious to some is not obvious to others, and I found myself increasingly uneasy at the degree to which I personally felt indicted by the film. I remember feeling this way when I first read Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, but the effect has not been the same upon reviewing it for my class (the film was also shown during three class periods, interspersed with some other activity), and any case, I think the visual effect is very crucial; I was disturbed simply by the sight of how gigantic the now-defunct “super size” actually was.

The real question is whether this film can cause anyone to change their behavior; Spurlock obviously would like the government and corporations to change theirs, but he explains the lobbying system (overlapping with Schlosser here, as he often does) clearly enough to show us that that’s not going to happen, so he does leave it up to us in the end. Initially, I felt irritated at being condemned without actually being enlightened (it’s not like I didn’t know that I shouldn’t eat that Western Bacon Cheeseburger, after all), but over time I feel more hopeful that I may have actually internalized some of the message. And most importantly, the film is much more entertaining than I expected, due mostly to its shock value; aside from that, the interviews in particular and such consist of a more complete package than the marketing would suggest (in fact the central stunt is largely just a marketing gimmick when it comes right down to it). My students did not react audibly as often as I did, but many of them had after all seen it before. But if I’m gonna measure this by how much impact it had on me, I should probably come back in a month and raise or lower the rating based on how concerned I am by that point!

Source: WEA DVD
5 March, 3:20 PM

Breach

Billy Ray, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

The film launches with some footage of a press conference with John Ashcroft in early 2001, as he announces the capture of a mole in the FBI; a title card takes us two months back and engages us in the story of a young operative, Eric O’Neil (Ryan Philippe), tasked to play the obedient subordinate to grumpy old man Chris Cooper and dig up some dirt on him. Of course, things are not what they seem and Philippe’s character has not been told the whole truth, but the film for the most part plays out as a complicated dance between the competent young hero and the grizzled, prickly character actor. It’s not just about the guys, though, as Philippe’s real boss, gamely played by Laura Linney, shows up every now and then to act tough; the obligatory cameos by the Wife Who Doesn’t Understand are as annoying as they usually are, but you can tell the filmmakers sorta know this, and it does pay off more than you might expect.

So as the critics say, Cooper’s performance is often compelling, and Philippe does a reasonably good job at keeping up. The film can also be very tense at times, and Ray does a good job selling us on the gravity of the whole situation. Ultimately, however, I can’t help but feel like the film is not quite exciting or significant enough due to its excessive dependence on standing up to the scrutiny they felt would ensue from the “based on a true story” tagline; this impression was only strengthened after viewing the bonus features, in which you see. I do think that they made the right choice, even in an artistic sense, in not seeking to “explain” Cooper’s character anymore than they did, as this would only detract from his performance. The problem is that the filmmakers seem to have decided that just putting on a fairly compelling reenactment of a recent even is enough of a raison d’être. Honestly, how can you do a story about intelligence failure in that brief pre-9/11 Bush period without trying to say, I don’t know, something about it! And finally, the ending really underwhelms; perhaps this was unavoidable, but perhaps a director should also ask if the thrill of a “true story” necessarily justifies a plot that will eventually just sorta go flat (I’m sure they punched it up a bit here and there, but it feels like they didn’t do so enough). As entertaining as the film is, it ultimately comes off as a more mature, more polished version of America’s Most Wanted.

Source: Universal DVD
6 March, 8:42 PM