An official selection at this year's New York Film Festival, Brian De Palma's Redacted (which I look forward to with great admiration) has been claimed as quite controversial. The film is De Palma's own self-meditative project on the war in Iraq and the way it has been told through the news, though it seems to bare a lot of consequentiality to the real. Hence, its title - “redact”: to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release.” It also seems very violent, as it ends with the rape and killing of an Iraqi girl. (It shows the faces of real people, ultimately giving the film its quasi-faux-doc aesthetic.) De Palma, who has an excell
ent oeuvre (my favorite being The Fury), has found himself in trouble with Magnolia Pictures – the people who will release his film – because of this aspect. A. O. Scott, who wrote the article linked below, then references the aesthetic and ethical qualities to this film; it seems as critics who mis-understand this paroxysm will easily nail it. He then analyzes the films that arise – from trash like The Kingdom to the honest In The Valley of Elah. Simply put, films about the war seem to be subconsciously infiltrating the cinema. “When filmmakers leave such touchy, serious political issues alone they tend to be scolded for complacency or cowardice. But to describe even a movie as angry and confrontational as Redacted as an exercise in finger-wagging or sloganeering is to miss the point. What is notable about this new crop of war movies is not their earnestness or their didacticism — traits many of them undoubtedly display — but rather their determination to embrace confusion, complexity and ambiguity.”, he specifies. In balancing aesthetic and ontological components, filmmakers often find themselves quite desperate, and a film who is able to do that is quite a rarity. The only one I can think of is Terrence Malick's 1999 masterpiece The Thin Red Line. He then zooms in on Rendition, a film in theaters now. He continues to mention how, ironically, while the films may have anti-Bush agenda, the do not name any particular person in office. Documentaries, such as Charles Furguson's powerful No End In Sight are actually what keenly serve as the “muckrackers” - an example can be said: Michael Moore. Scott then talks about symbolizations in film. These images – what do they mean? And so, as it comes to a close, he continues to suggest more films – such as Platoon, the excellent Vietnam film directed by Oliver Stone – and then zooms in on the futility of The Kingdom. It is simply there to entertain – there is no meaning behind it. “And this may be the lesson that filmmakers need to absorb as they think about how to deal with the current war. It’s not a melodrama or a whodunit or even a lavish epic. It’s a franchise.” Indeed.
Original Article: A War On Screen
("Redacted" image courtesy of Slant Magazine.)
7 comments:
I am completely horrified at the fact that they actually showed the faces involved in the rape. That is completely wrong and just imagine the shame brought on that poor Iraqi girl. The film may or may not be good, but that is something that should not even be considered, because it can completely destroy someone. We've all heard how rape can tear a person apart and I personally know someone who committed suicide after being raped, and I know what a terrifying, and torturous incident that was.
SylviePlath32-63: But can that not give justice to the poor girl? This is a case that was brutally ignore by Fox and the rest, and by doing this De Palma adds a whole level of realism to his faux-doc aesthetic. (I haven't seen the film, though I know it is comparable to "Casualties of War.") While it may destroy someone, what De Palma says herein is basically the truth; as Godard said: Film is nothing but Life, 24 frames per second.
Showing her rape on film? Will that really bring any justice? Or compromise someone's life and pride in order to create a stronger film? How dare they even for one moment think that they have the right to do something like that? A rape can destroy a person inside, but what if the whole world knows of your misfortune? Of course, in some cases it could help. But in other cases..could it not intensify the suffering and make it worse for that poor poor girl? I'm sure that including this might make for a "whole level of realism" but there's a cost for that realism. And I think that this is something that should not even be thought of being compromised. As silly as this may sound, I would compare this to the death of Steve Irwin. His family could have released the tape of his death to the public, but chose not to. They could have recieved a lot of moral support for it, but it also could have completely destroyed the family.
i dont really no but i agree that it makes me a little uncomfortable to think that this girls rape can be seen in a film
SylviePlath32-63: I simply don't understand what you mean by "cost of realism." What cost? Then just simply don't see the film. While I understand what you mean, part of De Palma's story is redacted -- the film has an "R" rating, so the scene can't be as visceral as it seems. But this is a different case: it's not to make a "stronger" film, it's to simply portray a side of the war that neither Fox nor the rest have; it's truth. This is a modified case, and De Palma has drawn the lines yes, but since neither of us has seen the film we don't know exactly. In case you haven't read -- the soldiers killed her.
Mike 2: Of course it's uncomfortable, but this scene actually happened in real life. Take that in mind.
Honestly, I think that the scene should be put in to show exactly what happens in Iraq. If they didn't show it, I would have to deem it as a travesty. You wouldn't present a solutions pros without its cons.
Well said. De Palma follows that by mixing a base that is false with a climactic event -- that is "Redacted."
Post a Comment