Why We Fight; A Meandering, Less-Declarative Fahrenheit.

The Good: Good thesis, Good use of archival footage, Decent DVD bonus features
The Bad: Repetitive DVD bonus features, Sacrifices some clarity for journalistic balance.
The Basics: On DVD, Why We Fight is a decent documentary about the power and scope of the military-industrial complex, which is eye-opening, if not as powerful as it could be.


Despite how polarizing a filmmaker like Michael Moore can be, there is something refreshing about watching some of his films and seeing that he has a stand to take, he takes it and his message becomes clear. Indeed, his quest in Roger & Me is compelling and his thesis in Fahrenheit 9/11 becomes almost undeniable based on the structure of his argument. Moore makes his documentaries fun and poignant and while Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!) may not have delivered the desired outcome, it's clear what the message is and what the director's goal is. When I sat down to watch Eugene Jarecki's documentary Why We Fight, I think I was expecting something more like a Moore documentary. The result was closer to Shut Up And Sing (reviewed here!), though Jarecki's outing is a bit more relevant and better.

When Dwight D. Eisenhower was leaving the office of the President of the United States, he gave a farewell address. In Eisenhower's Farewell Address, the President warns against the power and necessity of the military-industrial complex. Flash forward to 2005; the United States is at war in Iraq, the World Trade Center buildings have been leveled and the two have no linkage save a discourse created by biased individuals who had long planned an invasion of Iraq. Experts from within the Pentagon, the military establishment, Congress, and the arts explore the relationship between the military-industrial complex's influence and the drive toward warfare, both current and contemporary following 1961. As the business of war is explored, the idea that the Complex is self-sustaining and rooted more in power and control than defense becomes clear.

The problem is, writer/director Eugene Jarecki makes his point eloquently and early in Why We Fight and then never explores any options for undermining the system. The Beast persists and Why We Fight is simply an acknowledgment that we (the viewers and citizenry) are under its thumb. So, for example, when Jarecki's interviewed experts - who include John McCain, Gore Vidal, Susan Eisenhower (the President's granddaughter), and Karen Kwiatkowski (a Pentagon insider who now dissents) - establish that one of the most insidious actions taken by the military-industrial complex is to spread single contracts out among as many Congressional Districts as possible in order to keep the politicians beholden to them (the Complex means jobs, jobs are essential for votes), no possible solution is mentioned to this problem. Jarecki, nor his on-screen debators, suggest that there is an alternative to this. Instead, the light is shined on the Beast, but it has no incentive to slither away.

Similarly, Jarecki's production/directing style is more than a little lackadaisical in making many of the movie's points. Throughout the film, there are stories interwoven that fall out of the narrative for significant portions of the documentary. So, for example, a disillusioned 22 year-old enlists after his mother dies, a father whose son was killed at the World Trade Center recounts his desire for revenge and a whistleblower at the Pentagon takes a stand against the Empire that the military-industrial complex has built. But none of these threads is stayed with long enough to truly engage the viewer. The 22 year-old pops up, we here his story and he disappears for quite some time. By the time he reappears in the movie, his narrative does not so much matter. We don't care. We don't need the human face on the perpetrators of the military-industrial consequences; through the father's story we have a human face to its effects.

But more than that, the film remains overwhelmingly objective to the point of diluting its own argument. Amid footage of critics of Halliburton and Dick Cheney, comes Richard Perle declaring loudly and without any lack of authority that there is nothing inappropriate about Cheney's relationship with the military-industrial complex. I understand completely the need for a balanced argument. I applaud arguments that have reason, accept, acknowledge (then disembowel) the opposition view, but Jarecki's style is sloppy in this regard. There is no clear delineation between the arguments so Perle's abrupt presence and declarative nature (no matter how clearly his identity is labeled) either undercuts the principle argument of the segment or the result is that the film degenerates into a group of simple opinions by a bunch of people on what the military-industrial complex is and how it works.

Given the strength of the audio commentary track, I would like to believe that is not the case. No, it seems reasonable that the film is an argument against the need and might of the Complex and that the results of its power and influence (from think tanks to contractors to Congress) are all-encompassing, unConstitutional, and are at least partly responsible for miring the U.S. in the current military morass that is Iraq. Jarecki's ability to shape an argument is made more effectively in the film's many bonus materials. The commentary track is especially enlightening as Jarecki is joined by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson whose insights are invaluable. At least as important, Wilkerson does not spend the commentary track pandering to Jarecki or the personas on screen. He agrees with many, but he has a fair amount of disagreement as well.

Perhaps the most poignant moment of the presentation comes in one of the bonus features. In a generally lame Q&A session designed to answer the question "What do high school students think of the film?" (personally, I don't care what they thought), one of the students asks, "Why should I be willing to die for someone else's beliefs?" That's a great sentiment and a worthwhile focus of an entirely different movie.

Other DVD bonuses included extended scenes, many of which are repetitive clips of bits that made it into the film and they add nothing substantive to the presentation. After the eighth time one hears Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address, the point has been pretty effectively made. That was the starting point for Jarecki and it is a good place to start. It's important, though, for the film to get beyond it and it seems like it never really overcomes its roots to make bold statements about the connections between the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned about and the individuals who influenced the U.S. into the Iraq war.

As a result, Jarecki pulls punches on issues like Cheney's relationship with the Defense/War industry. For the moments Jarecki insinuates that think tanks are an unconstitutional problem, the viewer waits desperately for some corroboration from an authority on the subject. Alas, the only member of Congress interviewed for Why We Fight is John McCain. Where is Murtha? Where is John Conyers?

Outside the commentary track, Jarecki is absent from the film, focusing on the issues. And despite my critiques - and much of it may seem like minutiae and probably is - the film is a powerful statement on the connections between the disparate points of the military-industrial-Congressional complex, down to the individual lives dependent upon it. Jarecki weaves the story of the father's quest for vengeance in well-enough with the idea that the government and the military-industrial complex are designed more for their own self-perpetuation and survival than the truth.

The argument is a good one and with the DVD extras, it is fought for better than in the documentary alone. This is a worthwhile film for anyone who believes we must fight for our democracy and wants to know the ultimate Beast we must fight against for it.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
The Fog Of War
Who Killed The Electric Car?

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

You Can't Take It With You Embodies Much Of What I Loathe About Comedies.

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of performance
The Bad: Ridiculous, Light on character, Plot drown for theme and humor, DVD bonus features.
The Basics: With very dated madcap humor and lack of original characters, Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You falls down as a comedy.


For those who do not follow my many reviews, I am not a huge fan of comedies, especially slapstick or madcap humor. I'm not a huge fan of older movies, either, so it will probably be obvious to most that I watched You Can't Take It With You because of my current project and I did not know anything about the movie before it began. Released in 1938, this comedy is a strange blend of a Frank Capra social message and "Monty Python's Flying Circus. That it seems Capra-esque is no surprise; You Can't Take It With You was directed by Frank Capra. That it is like Monty Python's Flying Circus is also true, but the similarities are remarkable. Humor in this film is largely based on non sequitors and circumstances abruptly change for the absurd like a character randomly playing the xylophone, which causes another character to dance compulsively.

Exceptionally dated, You Can't Take It With You has some charms, but they are few and far between. What isn't absurdist tends to be entirely campy as the film is high on its social message and light on character development (one suspects even in its day, You Can't Take It With You's character development was entirely predictable). As I often note in circumstances like this, this film was based on a play; this review is solely of the classic film You Can't Take It With You, not the play upon which it was based.

Tony Kirby has been promoted to Vice President of his father's bank and he has begun dating Alice Sycamore, a poorer woman with a somewhat crazy family. Tony's father, Anthony is obsessed with a new deal which will consolidate weapons manufacturers in the United States and make his banks a huge amount of money and in order to seal the deal, he needs an entire complex of properties which he has systematically bought up. There is one holdout on selling, though, and that is the Sycamore residence, which Grandpa Vanderhof absolutely refuses to sell.

Tony and Alice go out on a date and Tony is so smitten with her that the next night, he brings his stuffy parents over for dinner. As the family scrambles to get a dinner prepared, Anthony's machinations inadvertently change the course of the night when the IRS and police converge upon the Sycamore house and throw everyone there in jail for disturbing the peace.

To be fair, the peace is disturbed by the circus of people living and stopping by the Sycamore house. Senile Grandpa Vanderhof has a fireworks manufacturing plant in the basement and so explosions are frequently going off and the film starts with Grandpa Vanderhof recruiting the disgruntled Mr. Poppins from the bank to come and make toys and be happy as opposed to slaving away for Mr. Kirby at his thankless job. In fact, throughout You Can't Take It With You is a strong message of enjoying life and living free as opposed to servicing the Capitalist machine. There is a decent sense of 1930s socialism in the movie and that is fun to see now.

But the two essential character struggles are terribly predictable and even droll. Tony and Alice are a pretty classic love story with the girl from the wrong side of the tracks (metaphorically) and the wealthy (prince-like) man with the world on a platter. There are no real surprises and as a result, their character arc is not only predictable, it is fleshed out with scenes that have nothing to do with anything else. For example, while out on their date, the pair is in the park and they encounter a small gang of children who teach them to dance for a dime and the whole dance routine is a non sequitor on top of other non sequitors. And while the whole dancing sister at the house is a non sequitor that establishes the Sycamores as somewhat zany, the park dance number is pretty much a dated reference to studio-owned child actors.

The other major conflict comes between Grandpa and Anthony Kirby. These are essentially character types representing Freedom vs. Social Responsibility. Freedom, as is the lesson of the 1930s (sadly lost today), wins out almost every time. Anthony Kirby is greedy, snooty and successful, but deeply miserable. On the other hand, Martin Vanderhof is happy, free and lives within his means. He has many friends and well-wishers and his family loves him, whereas even Tony refers to his father as a stuffed shirt. But Capra telegraphs his entire story by having Grandpa give Anthony a harmonica and the banker takes the harmonica out frequently, musing about what is truly important in life.

These two very predictable arcs - will the bank truly take over everything at the expense of the happy Sycamores? Will Anthony learn what is truly important in time? - are broken up by ridiculous scenes at the Sycamore house filled with a cacophony of sounds and movements. The random elements, like the dancing, xylophone playing, and the presence of Siberian transient Kolenkhov (who wrestles with Anthony and breaks his glasses) help create the chaotic mood of the Sycamore house, but they are essentially zany, madcap humor bits that establish a mood, then beat it into the viewers head over and over and over again. This is not to say there are no funny bits. While the black characters are entirely stereotypes (a servant and her fiance) one has a great line early on and the scene with the IRS auditor is actually quite funny.

As for the acting, You Can't Take It With You features the acting talents of classic performers like Jean Arthur, James Stewart (this is actually the first film I've seen with the legendary actor!), and Edward Arnold. Arnold is fabulous as Anthony Kirby, despite the role being pretty limited and him being forced to play more of an archetype than an actual character. Arnold is wonderfully stiff as Anthony, perfectly embodying the stereotype of the stuffed shirt bureaucrat.

But it is Lionel Barrymore who makes You Can't Take It With You even remotely watchable. Barrymore plays Grandpa Vanderhof and it is a distinct departure from his role in, for example, Grand Hotel (click here for that review!). Barrymore plays an eccentric remarkably well and he is loose and friendly the entire film, even when his character is forced to ream out Anthony Kirby. Barrymore has a casual quality to him that makes him seem like the archetypal grandfather with an ease that seems natural and perfectly in character.

On DVD, You Can't Take It With You comes with no bonus features and the film-only version is pretty disappointing as a result.

Ultimately, You Can't Take It With You is too erratic and too predictable when it is not being entirely random. The result is a comedy that holds up poorly over the years.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, by clicking here! Please check it out!]

For other comedies, please check out my reviews of:
Easy A
The Other Guys
Date Night

5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page for an organized listing by clicking here!

© 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

Few Laughs, Few Smiles It Happened One Night Is A Capra Failure (Though Clark Gable Strips)!

The Good: ? One or two lines
The Bad: Not funny, Obvious character development, Blasé acting, Predictable plot, In all ways mediocre.
The Basics: A huge disappointment, It Happened One Night is neither funny, nor romantic, nor dramatic; it's just bad!


The more movies I watch, the more I begin to think the works of Frank Capra are overrated. I know somewhere in my past, I saw and enjoyed Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, but recently when I watched You Can't Take It With You I found myself troubled. You Can't Take It With You won the Best Picture and I suspected that that was essentially a "lifetime achievement" award for Capra based on his prior successes. Then, though, it turned out Capra already had his Academy Award from It Happened One Night. So, tonight when I sat down to It Happened One Night, I was prepared for an awkward mix of zany and thematically heavy-handed. Instead, this 1934 film is consistent. Sadly, it is consistently droll.

While viewers are treated to a young Clark Gable stripping and there are moments I have to figure were audacious at the time (slapping a lady, men and women sharing a hotel room out of a sense of thrift, a man seeing a woman's underwear as she changes for bed), they now seem very dated. And while It Happened One Night is billed as a comedy, I do not recall laughing once, though I did smile a few times (most notably when Peter takes on a porter on the bus). As I usually note with such things, It Happened One Night is based upon a short story and this review is solely a review of the film, not the work upon which it was based.

A twenty-one year old woman escapes a ship (upon which she is essentially a prisoner) and her controlling father by jumping overboard. Swimming to shore, her wealthy father sets investigators searching for her, though she manages to elude her pursuers by taking a night bus out for New York City, she finds herself on her own for the first time in her life. Down on his luck with his reporting career, Peter Warne boards the same bus and the pair find themselves headed north. Soon, the reporter figures out that his travel companion is Ellie Andrews, the heiress.

When circumstances force the pair from the bus, Peter and Ellen take up at a small hotel and they make a deal; Ellie will continue to avoid her pursuers with Peter's help and Peter will get the opportunity to tell the story of Ellie living outside her usually fabulous lifestyle. As the reward for Ellie increases, pressure builds on Peter (and those around the pair) to turn Ellie in. Inevitably, the traveling companions develop a bond and Ellie has to decide if she wants to keep running or pair up with Peter.

It Happened One Night has some very basic comedic bits that now seem more droll than innovative. For example, Peter carries Ellie across a river at one point and he stops just long enough to surprise her with a spanking. They argue about how one cannot be both afraid and hungry at the same time and Ellie kicks straw on Peter while he actually works at making a bed in the straw. The only real moment that seemed innovative or even interesting in the humor department was when Peter convinces another bus rider to not turn Ellie in for the reward by convincing the man he is a mobster who has abducted the woman he correctly identifies as the heiress.

As well, the movie seems ridiculously dated and often contrived. For example, almost five minutes of the rather short movie are wasted with a sing-along on the bus. This gives the bus driver a few frames where we are supposed to laugh (I assume; I didn't) as he joins in the singing behind him. This causes the bus to break down in one of the worst special effects I've seen in an old film (the bus driver is clearly not the same man in the long shot as in the close ups). Sadly, the bus "episode" is not the only point where the movie makes a musical digression. Picked up by a driver when the pair is forced to hitchhike, Peter and Ellie are subjected to a musical driver who sings annoyingly.

It Happened One Night is a weird mix of supporting social mores of the time and challenging them. Peter is bossy and domineering with Ellie, even going so far as to threaten to break her neck when she acts out. At the same time, Ellie is strong enough to make her initial leap and when Peter's thumb fails to get the pair a ride, she puts out her leg. Times were clearly changing, but this is an early Depression era film that captures two people living poorly to try to achieve their goals.

It Happened One Night is populated by characters that it is virtually impossible to empathize with. Ellie's father is controlling and by extension supposed to be unlikable. But even as he manipulates Ellie and her husband for his own selfish needs, Ellie hardly stands out as a likable character. Instead, she is the archetypal rich kid and while the carrots Peter digs up are an obvious symbol for her setting aside her spoiled ways, she never pops as a likable character who is even remotely more than the type of character she represents.

Similarly, Peter is the scoundrel character who seems like he is only out for himself, but has a heart. Those of us raised after Star Wars recognize this as an archetype Han Solo fits into, but Clark Gable was known for helping to establish that archetype in cinema with several of his roles, including Peter. But Peter's arc just seems passé, even if this actually is supposed to be establishing the mold. There is a sense of predictability which permeates the film and it makes it virtually unwatchable.

In fact, It Happened One Night is particularly charmless and none of the characters or performances particularly pop. Gable is strangely familiar - like his character - in the role of Peter. Gable twinkles his eyes (or we assume he does as the film is in black and white) and he delivers his lines with his trademark sense of charm. The thing is, the charm is patented and plain and it is so predictably what one expects from Clark Gable.

Gable appears on screen with Claudette Colbert (Ellie) and while this was my first time seeing Colbert in anything. Colbert was entirely unmemorable as Ellie. Generally bland, Colbert has no on-screen chemistry with Gable and that is the death knell to a buddy comedy or a romantic comedy.

And It Happened One Night is just such a failure. It is not funny, not romantic, not dramatic enough. In fact, all it is is contrived and there are enough new movies like that; there's no need to go back to the vault for a classic disappointment like this one.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, by clicking here! Please check it out!]

For other travel comedies, please check out my reviews of:
Excess Baggage
The Proposal
Couples Retreat

2/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |