Old Gold Reviews: Richard Attenborough's Gandhi

Gandhi opens with the following caption:

"No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record and to try to find one's way to the heart of the man..."

The cliché 'based on a true story' is avoided, no gimmick that conjures to mind so many 'historical' films whose links to truth are about as tenuous as the bridge in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Few films would have the temerity to immediately highlight its own restrictions and admit to being nothing more than a portrayal. Yet the film can hardly be accused of artifice, nothing is exaggerated; the crowds were that big, Gandhi was that defiant and the British imperialists were that powerless to control him. It inevitably omits bits of Gandhi's life like all films do, not even a three-hour film can cover every aspect of a person, from the perverse to the mundane. Gandhi is one of the last truly epic films, huge productions that took decades and counting extras in the hundreds of thousands (who were directed in Attenborough's usual gentle, eloquent style).

It is a film that wouldn't be made today, watchmojo.com dismissed it as an, "over-long, corny, snoozefest" with good acting. The cretins! A film does not feel long because of its length but because of it's flow. Gandhi is not dull! For decades the greatest film-makers tried and failed to depict the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, the master strategy of war. Attenborough successfully tackled the master strategist of peace. Gandhi is an important film because in a culture saturated by violence this is a rare film that highlights its futility and dire consequences; in this film violence is resorted to by those who have lost the argument.

For me two biopics stand above the rest; Gandhi and Lawrence of Arabia. Both revolve around individuals during major historical events which they both create and react to. It gives their actions a lot more gravitas; knowing the decisions they made moved masses. There are many great biopics (e.g. Raging Bull, Ray, Walk the Line) but they are usually about figures whose impact was only culture deep. In these films you are concentrating on every word, knowing that they could .have major repercussions not only in the story you see but beyond it into the millions of lives that have been determined by them.

The Armstrong Lie Review

It's the lie that rode over half way around the world before the anti-doping regulators got on their bikes. Cancer survivor, seven times Tour de France winner, father, husband, philanthropist, global inspiration Lance Armstrong denied, concealed and bullied his way into legend in the space of a decade.

The first Tour win after coming back from brink seemed incredible. The six subsequent triumphs seemed impossible. The chance that he may do it again in his 2009 comeback seemed too good to be true. The latest chapter was something documentary-maker Alex Gibney wanted to capture, on-and-off the bike. However the original, triumphant narrative was never edited together due to spectacular revelations that have emerged since. Gibney admits that five years ago he wanted to tell a hero story, supporting Lance throughout the 2009 tour, now he like so many other fans who believed in Lance's legend wanted answers.

Gibney once again shows he is a master film-maker, guiding the viewer through the motions and emotions of Lance's career from a promising youngster to an inspiration to everyone to a fraud who fooled the world. Gibney also takes a look at the culture of the Tour itself and how it change Lance and how Lance changed it. The result is a tale that is shocking, scary, intense, upsetting and farcically funny.

The only criticism I'd have about Gibney's film is it's completely bleak portrayal of the sport, frankly there seems to be little room left for hope for the future. Cycling has earned its reputation as one in which there are two rule-books for principle and actual, something typified by the fact that there was only one clean podium finisher during Armstrong's 7 tours. All the tour racers interviewed were convicted dopers, frankly I'd have found it refreshing to the narrative if we heard from a cyclist who had spoken out against doping due to conscious like Christophe Bassons, his story could have really reinforced mafia sub-narrative running through the film. When it comes to reasons for doping I felt the film put too much emphasis on it being about keeping up with competitors as opposed to the overwhelming physical pressure cycling puts on the body which makes doping hard to resist.

This of course should only be seen as a minor criticism because this film is a character study rather than a documentary about sport which is the reason this film should have a wide appeal for anyone who's interested in the darker side of power and ambition.

Sherlock's 'His Last Vow' (Video Review, LOTS of SPOILERS

Sherlock's The Sign of Three (Video Review, LOTS of SPOILERS)

Book Review- The Age of Empire, 1875-1914 by Eric J. Hobsbawn

Following on from his previous works Age of Revolution and Age of Capital, Eric J. Hobsbawn concludes his insight into the long nineteenth century with The Age of Empire. This section of the trilogy picks up where Age of Capital finished, in the period after 1875 where the growth of capitalism and of liberal bourgeoisie influence began to spread into almost all aspects society in not just the ‘developed world’ but in the ‘backward’ areas too. While the book is separated into chapters, Hobsbawn structures his evaluation of this complex ‘bourgeoisie society’ in a continuous, flowing discourse, linking these chapters examining features such as the global economy, the steady emancipation of women and inevitable democratization of nations. Hobsbawn does take on the ideas of his peers, but primarily relies on the stories and ideas of contemporaries (always used to introduce each chapter), in particular Lenin (who Hobsbawn refers to in the picture section as, ‘Probably the individual with the greatest single impact on twentieth-century history’) along with statistics and maps in fields as diverse as, ‘World Production and World Trade 1781-1913’ (p.349) to ‘Opera and nationalism: performances of Wagner’s Siegfried 1875-1914’ (p.356). It is these witty and sobering remarks and numbers which help most to build up the era’s immensely intricate zeitgeist, which should be the role of any historian who hopes to connect their audience to the subject in their hands. Hobsbawn’s uses this method because he wishes to connect with all readers as he states in his preface, ‘Though written by a professional historian, this book is addressed not to other academics, but to all those who wish to understand the world and who believe history is important for this purpose.’

As a Marxist historian Hobsbawn aims to analyse "the materialist conception of history", which is a term used to describe Marx’s methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history. This approach also known as historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Hobsbawn tries to achieve this by re-evaluating the perception the late 19^th and 20^th century bourgeoisie and most of the modern Europe’s public has of this period as ‘the beautiful era’ or belle époque (Hobsbawn’s primary manner of referring to it). Hobsbawn cannot and does not deny that it was a ‘bourgeois world’ (p.33) in which; the national economies and global economy has been shaped by bourgeoisie capitalism and progressed as a result, the majority of political systems are steadily acquiring or embracing liberal-bourgeoisie theories and social structures which are being freed up to provide opportunities to people who lacked the ability before. Hobsbawn does not deny but reasserts these ideas; showing how wealth, production and trade did increase on the whole, that electorates expanded and in some cases like Australia and New Zealand went on to form the first, modern democratic systems and that people resembling Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi of high-social standings in ‘backward’ countries like India could take advantages of western benefits like education. Hobsbawn juxtaposes this belle époque view with many other factors which advanced along with it but not in the same ideology such as nationalism and socialism and issues which undermined the belle époque such as the Great Depression. He also of points out the clear point that the whole world was not basking in the benefits of the belle époque, Hobsbawn makes an immediate distinction between the developed, advanced world of most of western Europe and the USA and the dependent, backward (sometimes developing) world of Asia, Africa and most of the Americas.

The chapters discussing the progress of the arts, science, reason and women largely due to the advance of liberalism show how the first steps were taken in aspects of mass media, in understanding how the universe really worked and the extension of women’s rights. However Hobsbawn plays down their effects during this period, showing how developments such as the Suffragette movement only achieved their ambitions after the war and revolutionary scientific theories like Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’ only began to be appreciated by academics after the Great War. Hobsbawn concentrates more on the social impacts that bourgeoisie liberalism had in pushing forwards inevitable democratization which elevated issues of mass socialism and popular nationalism into an area of significance.

Hobsbawn lays much credit to Marx for starting the socialist philosophy which was adopted during the Age of Empire by the majority of the proletariat in the developed world but says the reason for its growth was due to the rise in urbanisation, a result of the advance of elements of a bourgeoisie economy; industrialisation and the growth of the tertiary sector. Urbanisation then contributed to swell in union support due to socialist leaders reaching out to workers offering them support; while Hobsbawn is quick to refute the fact that there was no single, united, global working class he can easily make the point that an increase of a large, politically-minded proletariat put pressure on numerous governments. When the electorates of many nations extended to include this very group, Hobsbawn says there was apprehension from the governing classes because now a group of strong class consciousness was now admitted which, ‘seemed most directly to threaten the social, economic and political system of modern societies’ (p.112). One of the ways in which governments aimed to dilute the threat of a more socialised state was to try and turn its people into model citizens, by using symbolism of grandeur throughout the nation and using primary education as a means of encouraging civic behaviour. These ambitions were greatly fulfilled one-way or another by the early 20^th century and helped create nations more united as a people; however with this nationalistic belief came Hobsbawn claimed there was a near universal sense of national superiority within most of the developed nations. Hobsbawn also argues effectively that mass enthusiasm to enlist at the beginning of the Great War was due to this, ‘only the sense that the cause of the state was genuinely their own could mobilize the masses effectively’ (p.164); Hobsbawn sombrely concludes that this enthusiasm was temporary.

The final two chapters concentrate on how bourgeoisie civilization built upon rationalist principles such as peace and progress, began to disintegrate in certain parts of the world due to the widespread revolutions in backward countries and the Great War which the developed states plunged into. Hobsbawn argues that even though these events were the last thing the capitalist benefactors and liberal pioneers of the bourgeoisie civilization wanted, it was their desired civilization which ‘carried within itself the embryo of war, revolution and crisis which put an end to it.’ (p.327). It is in these two chapters in which Hobsbawn aims to vindicate his re-evaluation.

In the case of the revolutions Hobsbawn argues with clear legitimacy that the ‘Bourgeoisie Century destabilised its periphery’ (p.277) by undermining the balance within these societies and their old economic structures while destroying the established political institutions. This is not to say that Hobsbawn says that as soon countries like Russia, Turkey, China and Mexico were injected with a capitalist system or had their long-standing political and social ideals intertwined with western, liberal ideals things took a turn for the worst. He acknowledges that the systems within these countries were highly unstable to begin with, however as Hobsbawn indicates with vindictive examples that as soon as these countries tried to emulate the west as great political or economic powers they sowed the seeds of revolutionary fervour which pushed the proletariat and/or peasants within these countries to toppling the regimes that governed them. Using the Mexican Revolution in 1910 Hobsbawn demonstrates how attempts by the autocratic President Diaz to change his nation’s agricultural setup from one consisting of village communities into one that favoured business-minded estate, in the hope it would lead to greater national, economic prosperity due to more trade with it’s commercialized neighbour the United States, led to widespread agrarian discontent based on lack of land and income, which coupled with an economic slump which began in the United States led to a Revolution. Hobsbawn gives the Russian Revolution takes precedence over the other revolutions in terms of significance, saying that while revolutions in China and Mexico led to decades of unstable government, because according to Hobsbawn Russia’s example of a collapsing, backward, Great Power being replaced by a more stable government helped spread the idea of revolution and change to developed nations like Germany and backward countries like China. With Russia Hobsbawn attempts to crush the idea that revolutions around the world could have been avoided, especially if there was no Great War. Hobsbawn shows how Tsarist Russia wished to make itself a Great Power despite it’s insecurity by emulating western systems by industrialising, while Hobsbawn admits this helped the Tsarist system achieve it’s ambition of higher production levels and overall economic prosperity, the most significant change was the social aspect of urbanization the offspring of industrialisation. This created a growing proletariat which was easily influenced by ideas of Revolution, socialism and Marxism due to the poor conditions they were forced to work and live in. Although Hobsbawn denies that factors such as the Great War didn’t play that greater role in causing revolution saying it was inevitable, this is probably a bit too biased towards his argument because while he points out that the regimes like those in Russia had been shaken by insurrections like the 1905 Revolution before, he undervalues the role the Tsarist army had in putting them down which they may have been able to do in 1917 if they weren’t fighting other Great Powers.

Hobsbawn had already determined that nationalism was the primary factor in encouraging the masses to fight for their state in the Great War, in his conclusion Hobsbawn tries to determine what these states were fighting for. Hobsbawn says that war was inevitable due to changes in international diplomacy which saw the strengthening of permanent opposing powers, a change in global politics with other nations trying to imitate Britain’s imperial success and a change in the balance of power in Europe with Britain opposing Germany in the hope of preventing them usurping their position as the dominant economic, global power. This combined with an increasingly nationalistic population and military capacity built up international tensions between the powers to the point that the beginning of a war seemed a relief, which soon became exhaustive obstacle.

Hobsbawn’s conclusion to his detailed overview into the long nineteenth century is a fascinating look into the world which he states in his epilogue that, ‘the Age of Empire saw the birth of most of what is still characteristic of the modern urban society of mass culture’ (p.337) and ‘the world of the late twentieth century is still shaped by the bourgeois century, and particularly by the Age of Empire’. He pays tribute to the bourgeois society which wished to achieve, ‘an era of endless improvement, material, intellectual and moral, through liberal progress’ (p.339) which he showed was achieved in certain aspects and provided most of the inhabitants of this bourgeoisie century that they were living in ‘an age of hope’ (p.339). But also counters these physical and psychological achievements by showing the short comings and actions of the bourgeoisie unintentionally precipitated in the numerous crises and catastrophes of the 20^th Century (which he later paints in The Age of Extremes (1994) as the most violent century ever). If the non-academic readers of this book can take that into account then Hobsbawn will have achieved his ambition in changing the optimistic view that the bourgeoisie of the Age of Empire merely created a belle époque, but that they were the accidental makers of the most catastrophic events which have occurred in our lifetime.

‘Historical documentaries inevitably distort our perspective on the past.’ Discuss by comparing 'Hearts and Minds' (1974) to academic accounts of the same subject.

 Hearts and Minds is a documentary film about the United States’ intervention in the war between the communist and non-communist forces in Vietnam. The film was released in 1974; a year after the Paris Peace Accords and a year before the fall of Saigon to the communists. Several scholars have already assessed Hearts and Minds often coming to slightly indecisive conclusions as to whether the film does distort the reality of the Vietnam War. For incidence McCullough notes that the director Peter Davis ‘presents the truth of what happened in Vietnam, but through manipulation and editing, furthers his anti-Vietnam war point of view.’[1] This discussion will attempt to show that distorting the past is an accusation that most historical accounts cannot avoid and is certainly inevitable when referring to the Vietnam War. This view will be complemented by points made by other public and academic commentators concerning this film, the Vietnam War and documentary filmmaking.

Walter Goodman was one of Hearts and Minds’ initial critics, labelling it ‘propaganda’ for distorting real images and events in order to support a simplified thesis about the Vietnam War.[2] In the commentary of the 2002 DVD version of Hearts and Minds Davis acknowledges the affect his personal bias had on the film and says he never claimed to provide an objective account on the war. Film scholar Barnouw defends this viewpoint stating that documentaries cannot avoid subjectivity, ‘one can hardly imagine a documentary, or a film, or any kind of communication that is not propaganda- in the sense of trying to present evidence that may enlarge understanding and change ideas.’[3] Hunt remarks that while academic literature may be more complex and nuanced than history on screen, each new addition to the discourse is still essentially a ‘polemical interjection’ primarily due to the author’s attempts to apply meaning to past incidents in order to understand them. Hunt states that such accounts need to confront the broader scholarship via a dialectical process in order to be accepted as a viable perspective that can be incorporated into the subject’s historiography.[4]

Hearts and Minds is primarily based upon Davis’s personal experience of collecting nearly 200 hours of original film footage in Vietnam and the United States during the latter stages of the war. Davis’s experiences and footage informed his outlook of the war and allowed him to create a narrative with a montage of sources including testimonies of people who had some connection to the Vietnam War and from other film footage he felt related to the topic.[5] Davis states in the commentary that as he became more intimately involved in the subject while filming, ‘I became much less opinionated and much more in the way of feeling.’ Viewers of the film share some of Davis’s despair for the inhumanity of war as they witness real suffering and raw emotion from all sides of the conflict. Even critics like Kanfer acknowledge, ‘Throughout, Hearts and Minds displays more than enough heart. It is mind that is missing. Perhaps the deepest flaw lies in the method: the Vietnam War is too convoluted, too devious to be examined in a style of compilation without comment.’[6] 

Hearts and Minds has no narrator, Davis says in his commentary that this was done in order to, ‘remove that curtain that comes between a person and the experience on film of people feeling.’ The lack of an authorative voiceover means that Hearts and Minds primarily conforms to the traits of an ‘observational documentary.’ Warrington defines this genre as being a compilation of, ‘the recording of phenomena as they happen, with little or no commentary.’[7] The audience sees little intervention on the part of the film crew, augmenting the notion that the filmmaker merely witnessed past events and is not an agent in its representation via recording and editing. This facilitates an impression that the whole film is a literal representation of reality.

Barnouw assumes documentary filmmakers make their intentions clear, thereby acknowledging the film’s agenda.[8] This does not apply to Hearts and Minds. Most detractors of Hearts and Minds criticise it for excluding coverage of communist atrocities in Vietnam while emphasising ones committed by Americans and their allies.[9] Davis defends himself during the film’s commentary by saying his film only contemplated American actions. However the audience is unaware of his objectives and therefore believes the film is considering the whole war.

In his commentary Davis states that Hearts and Minds sought to address three questions about the United States; ‘Why did we go to Vietnam?’, ‘What did we do there?’ and ‘What did the doing in turn do to us?’ To help address these questions Hearts and Minds provides juxtaposing testimonies of supporters and opponents of the American intervention in Vietnam. However there isn’t much dialectical tension because the arguments made by people who supported American intervention are always unconvincing and therefore undermine their own stance. Davis’ editing and selection of sources emphasizes this notion by contrasting their arguments with more compelling perspectives and by showing them discrediting themselves. Most infamously this occurs near the end of the film with the testimony of General Westmoreland, the commander of US military operations in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968.  Westmoreland states that, ‘The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner...as the philosophy of the Orient expresses it, life is not important.’ This testimony was preceded by four minutes of distraught North and South Vietnamese people mourning the loss of their loved ones, including a man who accuses Nixon of murdering his daughter. Westmoreland’s racist statements are not only reinforced as immoral but also fatal because he represents a faction of the United States who had responsibility for conducting a war effort to ‘save’ one set of Vietnamese people from another. Westmoreland’s statements suggest that such people did not understand the Vietnamese nor value them as equals, a point made by opponents of American intervention earlier in the film. Barbier’s survey of the history and historiography of the Vietnam War notes how many but not all American policymakers and historians have been ignorant of Vietnamese perspectives due to their perception of the War as American.[10] Testimonies in Hearts and Minds that assert that Americans never understood the Vietnamese are partially legitimated by Barbier’s analysis while the simplified version presented by Davis provides complete vindication.

Conversely testimonies against the war are not challenged or discredited. Daniel Ellsberg declares that South Vietnam was nothing more than an American creation. Ellsberg’s testimony is succeeded by South Vietnam’s former President Khanh. Khanh unintentionally supports Ellsberg’s claim as he provides evidence showing the American ambassador telling Khanh to leave Vietnam which Khanh says was the result of his refusal to submit to Washington’s demands. Loicano states that South Vietnam continues to be remembered by many historians as a nation created by the United States. Loicano challenges this historiography by showing South Vietnam did have genuine political and historical reasons to declare independence from the North but that these claims couldn’t withstand Hanoi’s dominant narrative of a united Vietnam.[11] Whether Ellsberg’s assertion is a distortion of the past remains part of a historical debate; however Hearts and Minds doesn’t suggest there is one.

Moscardo explains that audiences can either be rendered ‘mindful’ or ‘mindless’ by what they are presented. A ‘mindful’ audience is aware of multiple perspectives, while the other is reliant on one source of information without being aware of alternatives.[12] While the opposing perspectives are provided in Hearts and Minds one is so thoroughly discredited it does not seem a viable alternative to the reinforced argument that the American intervention in Vietnam was immoral and careless. Hearts and Minds’ weighted evidence and illusions of reality means that many uninformed viewers won’t come away curious but overwhelmed at how ignorant the United States had been. For this reason the historian Steirer feels obligated to instruct students of the topic to ‘compensate’ for the film’s ‘purposeful distortion’ by doing further research in order to come to a deeper understanding of the subject rather than one that is solely based on emotions.[13]

The Vietnam War is renowned for being a subject that divides opinions beyond scholarship. Recently Barbier observed that ‘even a college course’ would still probably be unable to provide students with an accurate historical picture of the war due to the complexity of the subject and the debate that attempts to define its meaning.[14] Barnouw notes that while the documentary series Vietnam: A Television History was acclaimed by many historians for providing popular audiences with a thorough, multifaceted and indefinite presentation of the war it was attacked by those who had a more simplistic and often self-serving perspective of the war.[15] The divisive legacy the Vietnam War continues to maintain means reaching a historical consensus proves to be difficult and makes accusations of distorting the past an inevitability for any accounts on the subject.

Rosenstone advocates that like other mediums films should be acknowledged as contributing to our understanding of previous times due to their ability to reflect upon the zeitgeist and our retrospective capacity to see how they are received.[16] Historians will regard Hearts and Minds as lacking the multifaceted narrative required to tell the story of the United States’ intervention in Vietnam. However in many respects the film is more provocative than historical. During the film’s commentary Davis states that his primary objective was to reach a wide audience in order to encourage people to consider or reconsider the war. The parade sequence at the end of the film highlights a concern that many morally-informed war opponents had at the time, that Americans were wilfully forgetting the lessons and terrible consequences of the Vietnam War.[17] Tallent feels that while the film is one-sided it is justified due to its attempt to make people contemplate a serious issue. Tallent adds that Hearts and Minds’ antiwar message does not resort to lying and demonising the opposition like American policymakers and the mainstream media did for so many years in order to generate support for the war effort.[18] Brigham also praises the film for providing a platform for the ordinary Vietnamese who opposed American intervention. Brigham asserts that before Hearts and Minds many Americans ignored or were unaware of these people’s perspectives and suffering.[19] The admiration the film has received from the Academy Awards and by public commentators decades later not only indicates the film’s ability to leave a lasting impression upon audiences, but also emphasizes how effective moral arguments were for the anti-Vietnam War cause.[20] Conversely the condemnation it aggravated highlighted some of the alternative perspectives of the subject. By provoking a response Hearts and Minds inspired debate in public and academic spheres. To an extent this has enhanced our understanding of the Vietnam War because it exposes how it has been remembered.  

 In the majority of cases singular historical narratives, whatever their medium, do distort our perspective of the past to some degree due to their inability to incorporate all viewpoints and factors. Hearts and Minds is no exception, however this is not necessarily a flaw due to the fact it presents a viable and convincing perspective of the past that was created to counter a dominant narrative that was guilty of greater distortion for self-serving purposes. Its primary fault is its subtle authorative tone, which is achieved by editing actual events into a seamless argument that strongly implies a literal representation of the past rather than a subjective one.

---

[1] M. McCullough, ‘Vietnam in a different light’, Trinity University (2006), 

http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documentary/m.mccullough.2006.hearts.and.mi

nds.pdf (21 April 2012).

[2] W. Goodman, ‘The False Art of the Propaganda Film’, The New York Times, 23 March 1975, p.109.

[3] E. Barnouw, Documentary: a history of the non-fiction film (2nd edn, Oxford, 1993), pp.344-5.

[4] T. Hunt, ‘How Does Television Enhance History?’, in History and the Media, ed. D. Cannadine (Basingstoke, 2004), pp.94-5.

[5] ‘Peter Davis on Hearts and Minds’, http://documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/peterdavisham.html (15 April 2012).

[6] S. Kanfer, ‘War-Torn', Time, 17 March 1975, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912958,00.html (17 April 2012).

[7] M.H. Warrington, History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film (London, 2007), p.128.

[8] Barnouw, Documentary, pp.344-5.

[9] Goodman, ‘Propaganda’, p.109; ‘Hearts and Minds – A Must to Avoid’, http://vva.org/blog/?p=278 (18 April 2012).

[10] M.K. Barbier, ‘Introduction: Vietnam in history and memory’, in America and the Vietnam War: Re-examining the Culture and History of a Generation, eds. A. Wiest, M.K. Barbier, and G. Robins (New York, 2010), pp.3-5.

[11] M. Loicano, ‘Vietnam divided: regional history and the Vietnam wars, 1598-1975, in America and the Vietnam War: Re-examining the Culture and History of a Generation, eds. A. Wiest, M.K. Barbier, and G. Robins (New York, 2010), pp.15-34.

[12] G. Moscardo, 'Mindful Visitors: Heritage and Tourism', Annals of Tourism Research 23 (1996), pp.380-4.

[13] W.F. Steirer Jr, 'Hearts and Minds', The History Teacher 9 (1976), pp. 664-5.

[14] Barbier, ‘Vietnam Memory’, pp.1-2.

[15] Barnouw, Documentary, pp.319-320.

[16] R.A. Rosenstone, History on film/film on history (Harlow, 2006), pp.22-31.

[17] D. Grosser, ‘ “We Aren’t on the wrong side, we are the wrong side”: Peter Davis Targets (American) Hearts and Minds’, in From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film, eds. L. Dittmar and G. Michaud (New Jersey, 1990), pp.270-1.

[18] C. Tallent, ‘Hearts and Minds: Analysis of war propaganda and

dehumanization’, Trinity University (2006), 

http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documentary/c.tallent.2006.hearts.and.minds.pdf (14 April 2012). 

[19] R.K. Brigham, ‘Hearts and Minds’, The Criterion Collection (2002), http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/213-hearts-and-minds (12 April 2012).

[20] D. Thomson, ‘Hearts And Minds' Recaptured’, The Washington Post, 22 October 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51347-2004Oct21; ‘History Worth Repeating’, The Guardian, 5 November 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/nov/05/features (11 April 2012).

Old Gold Reviews: Hitman: Blood Money

Silence is a word many would associate with the Hitman series. The game rewards those who complete their missions without raising the alarm with a “Silent Assassin” rating. But it is also a game that few people will shout out about because of what the game revolves around: cold-blooded murder.

At a glance Hitman is one of the most psychopathic franchises ever made and is certainly not a title one would use to defend gaming from its mainstream critics. Players have the option of strangling victims to death, blowing their brains out or simply feeding them to alligators. It also features one of the most sinister protagonists in gaming – Agent 47; a suited, hairless clone with a bar-code on the back of his head and a strict policy of ‘no witnesses’ (innocent postmen, dogs, priests and journalists will receive no mercy). However it undoubtedly provides one of the most satisfying experiences in gaming. I can assure you this has nothing to do with how the victim is executed and much more to do with how a strategy is.

Level design is the essence of Blood Money’s brilliance, with colourful and exotic environments such as an opera house, a steamboat and Mardi Gras parades. These complex locations involve a lot of AI activity and a maze of rooms, corridors and streets which 47 must navigate through in order to fulfil his objective. This provides the game’s thrills; observing AI movements so you can slip by or incapacitate them so as not to arouse suspicion. This builds the tension that will form the basis for satisfaction once you complete the mission.

Hitman isn’t exactly welcoming to new players, who will probably have to witness a few shoot-outs and bad scores before getting that feeling of achievement. Observance and patience are the virtues Hitman seeks to reward, so to any newcomers – stick at it! This gives Hitman an enduring appeal that appease the dated graphics and animations (47’s death scenes are something that won’t fail to frustrate).

Hitman: Absolution will appear later this year, an announcement that has stimulated both anticipation and concern. Current trailers and demos allude to a sequel that is more action-packed, linear and story driven (the dreaded word “cinematic” has been mentioned by developers).  Such factors have been of secondary importance so far in the series, and hopes are that they stay so. Hitman is something that only makes sense in a gaming universe, which is why its transfer to cinema was instantly forgettable. Hopefully these signs are just developer IO Interactives’ venture to entice a new audience, not an attempt to accommodate them with a simpler game. Despite this, the franchise has only improved with age.

Found at: http://forgetoday.com/fuse/games/retro-corner-hitman-blood-money/

Old Gold Reviews: Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence of Arabia is one of those classics that any filmophile should make time for and I mean make time for. With a running time of 216-minutes complete with a 15-minute intermission means it easily falls into the epic category. It is a picture from another era that revels in the vast emptiness of time and space that occupies the Arabian Desert while simultaneously focusing on one extraordinary individual at a monumental time.

Peter O’Toole arguably earns the accolade for greatest screen debut as T.E. Lawrence, a British Officer and archaeological scholar who is tasked with assisting the Arabic uprising against the Ottoman Empire. It is a gripping biopic of a mysterious figure that was immortal and fragile, kind yet cruel and reserved while displaying chauvinism. O’Tooles’s performance and presence is astounding, earning him immediate universal praise including the compliment from renowned wit Noël Coward who told O’Toole: "If you`d been any prettier, it would have been Florence of Arabia."

The cast is a terrific ensemble of stars in the making like O’Toole and Omar Sharif and established screen legends in their twilight years such as Alec Guiness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle and Claude Rains. David Lean, a master of the small and large scale, successfully juxtaposes action with emptiness as he directs many charismatic performances within an immense landscape and a sweeping score that illustrate a journey so ambiguous yet impressionable that it doesn’t feel like it ever ends.

Lawrence of Arabia is one of the grandest examples of the epic films that typified the motion pictures of the fifties and early sixties. “You were great once” was Lawrence’s lamentation on the decline of the Arabian civilisation. While films may not have since descended into barbarism and stupidity it is still the case that Lawrence of Arabia was one of Hollywood’s last flings with films to its scale.

Old Gold Reviews: Shadow Dancer

“Relax, we’re on the same side” is the hollow piece of reassurance offered to MI5 agent Mac (played by Clive Owen) in Shadow Dancer, directed by Oscar recipient James Marsh. This adaptation of Tom Bradby’s 1998 novel is set five years prior to the Good Friday Agreement and is inspired by Bradby’s time as an ITN correspondent in Northern Ireland during the latter stages of the Troubles. The political details of the novel are largely omitted in order to keep the personal plight of single mother and IRA sympathiser Colette McVeigh (played by Andrea Riseaborough) central to the story. Colette has been pressured by Mac into becoming a government informant in order to avoid incarceration at the expense of her biological and ideological brothers.

This is a gripping if uncomfortable and slow-burning psychological thriller in which the tension is only ever let up in explosive episodes of bloodshed. The prospects for the Republican residents of Belfast appear desperately bleak; their economically deprived community is accentuated by the low-light and muted colours captured on camera and repetitive returns to familiar locations highlights their inability to escape their troubles. The cast are all adept at portraying the inner conflict of people trying to lead ordinary lives or at least give the impression they are. Riseaborough is superb as the insecure lead, whose thoughts and drive remain a mystery throughout.

Violence has been the focus of the majority of films concerning Ireland’s past and despite Shadow Dancer’s proximity to the peace negotiations the sectarian conflict doesn’t show any signs of letting up. Shadow Dancer’s reference to the peace talks is discussed with indifference while the stance of both the Unionists and Republicans during the funeral of an IRA man remains uncompromising. Exciting but hardly uplifting drama. 

4/5

Old Gold Reviews: Straight Story

Introduced as David Lynch's Disney movie I feel I have had a distorted introduction to the man's work. A good and fascinating biopic of a very driven old timer, Alvin Straight who is isn't prepared to let his age restrain him. A tender and moving story that follows his journey across the mid west on a lawn mower, which is enlivened by his encounters with folks as he tries to reconnect with his estranged brother.

9/10

Old Gold Reviews: The Shining

Stanley Kubrick has done a lot to elevate movies’ status to that of an art, which is partly due to him really being a photographer at heart. This association isn’t solely down to his films’ ability to push the boundaries in cinematography, editing and visual metaphor but also for their initially mild receptions before they are gradually recognised as classics. 

The Shining is probably the best example of this; with the Academy Awards and BAFTA taking Kubrick off their list of nominees for the first time in 25 years, so the Golden Raspberries offered him a nomination as a condolence that at least he was one of the best of the bad. Audiences didn’t immediately avoid the film, it was a Stephen King novel directed by Stanley Kubrick so how could it be bad? Well Stephen King hated it for starters, the Kubrick faithful thought it was an uncharacteristically straightforward story, while horror fans weren’t doing their usual screaming at stuff catching them off guard. The Shining will not have you jumping out of your skin; in fact it will do the opposite by creeping under your skin to disturb you to the very core. This film is frightening and it will haunt you for some time.

The setting is the essence of the effect; the labyrinths of rooms, corridors and mirrors at the Overlook Hotel disorientates the audience’s grip on perspective, distant noise echo around the vast emptiness of its walls and the eerie music fills you with pure dread. Kubrick used every trick in his book to create a unique experience, that’ll certainly put one off mountain resorts for a while. There are also moments and characters that will amplify your anxiety, with Jack Nicholson managing to horrify not one but two seemingly innocent popular phrases forever. The feeling of watching The Shining at home or on an iphone or on whatever-gizmo will not be as intense as watching it in a cinema, where you intimately share the trepidation of the characters and feel overwhelmed by the sheer nothingness of the Overlook. I feel slightly cheated that I was unable to awe at some of my favourite films on the big screen due to not being born, which is why I’ll jump at any opportunity to see a Kubrick, Leone or Coppola when it is redistributed. These revivals are exceedingly rare and temporary, so it would be a shame not to take advantage of them.

I am trying to avoid SPOILERS but what’s the point? The film’s been out for 30 years and you’ve probably already seen it or at least seen it parodied in brilliant episodes of The Simpsons. Yet Stanley’s favourite TV show contained a feature that he directly inspired, to hide messages in his works. While The Simpsons usually does this to add another joke to a scene, Kubrick utilised it to reinforce obvious or suggest alternative themes. There is a clichéd assessment of Kubrick films which is that his reputations as a perfectionist means no mistake or continuity error was overlooked but was deliberate and is there for a reason. This has been overstated somewhat, for instance the shadow of the helicopter in the first shot is most likely a mistake, although to be fair Stanley didn’t shoot this due to his fear of flying, despite having a pilot licence. Peculiar fella, yet an intriguing one who knew how to make enduring films. Kubrick put a lot of detail into the visual because he wanted a lot to be left unsaid so the audience could reach their own conclusions. There is no one way to watch a Kubrick film.

People have obsessed over Kubrick films, in fact the interpretations of The Shining enthusiasts even warranted its own film Room 237, which was released this Autumn. These Kubrickites are academics, playwrights, conspiracy theorists and respected news correspondents, who have hypotheses ranging from plausible metaphors for the deliberately forgotten plight of the Native Americans to the more subtle Holocaust interpretations to the flat-out denied conspiracies that Kubrick was secretly apologising for faking the moon landing. I found another outlandish analysis on YouTube by Kubrick fanatic Rob Ager, who suggests the decline of the Gold Standard in the 1920s and 1930s is a central theme. While they may sound bonkers they do vindicate themselves with the film and they are doing as the director intended by developing their own thoughts rather than being spoon-fed somebody else’s. So be warned, this film can drive one a little mad, not with a murderous lust but with the multiple ways one can make sense of the film. Usually it takes a few views to clear your ideas but remember not to go too far into the maze of details or you’ll struggle to get out.

Old Gold Reviews: On the Road (2011)

I first watched On The Road not long after the Summer of 2012. The film had just got over a serious case of rejected screenplays that nobody wanted to produce, except this did not stop people trying for over half a century. With the eventual coming of an on-screen Dean Moriarty, or is that Neal Cassady? Wait, which On The Road is this? When I consult copies of the original On The Road and the posthumously published On The Road: The Original Scroll, I noticed this isn’t a textbook adaptation. 

Based upon his personal experiences on the road, Jack Kerouac famously wrote one long paragraph of spontaneous prose onto a 120-foot scroll during a caffeine-fuelled three weeks in 1951. This legendary scroll was only recently made available in book format because it was originally rejected by publishers for being; too graphic (especially regarding sex), without structure and on the wrong side of libel laws due to the inclusion of real names. On The Road was eventually published in 1957 after multiple revisions. Kerouac always wanted there to be a film adaptation but for generations of actors the opportunity to play Sal or Dean was scuppered by unworthy screenplays. Even Apocalypse Now director Francis Ford Coppola conceded after decades of attempts that, "I tried to write a script, but I never knew how to do it. It's hard — it's a period piece. It's very important that it be period. Anything involving period costs a lot of money."

The success of The Motorcycle Diaries in 2004 reinvigorated hype about a possible On The Road movie, due to the fact that like Kerouac’s novel Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara’s memoir had previously been dubbed ‘un-filmable.’ So in 2010 studios in the USA, Britain and France tasked The Motorcycle Diaries’ director (Walter Salles) and scriptwriter (Jose Riveria) with proving the cynics wrong again.
Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund and Kristen Stewart head the ensemble selected to represent the most famous figures of the ‘Beat Generation.’ Hedlund injects plenty of madness into the character of Dean, giving everyone a good time until he gets bored and moves on for new kicks. Dean dominates his every scene with boundless energy and wild-eyed enthusiasm, sparking immediate affection to all those who see him but stirring brooding resentment when he’s not there. Stewart does a fine job at portraying the freaky chic of Mary Lou, certainly a departure from her Twilight career. However Riley as Sal Paradise is somewhat over-shadowed by Dean to the point that he lacks independence. Dean is certainly a driving force for the book but Sal is capable of having his own adventures which are covered in the film all too briefly.

The book’s scale is the film’s biggest challenge. Several scenes and characters have to be omitted but the basic structure of the journey is followed; hitting the road to-and-from New York, Denver, San Francisco, New Orleans while making plenty stops in-between, before heading to Mexico for some dope, bordellos and dysentery. Some characters and scenes are actually fleshed out beyond their novel depiction; Carlo Marx (played by Tom Sturridge) has a little more to give and his sexual frustrations are allowed to come to the fore rather than be obscured by intellectual eccentricity which is largely thanks to the subsequent writings of the man Carlo is based upon, Allen Ginsberg. The film-makers certainly weren’t short of source material which is hardly surprising seeing as how most of the characters were writers in real life! However this actually contributes to a confusing aspect of the film; what is it based upon? Is it the original novel? The scroll? Or extra features from Kerouac’s life? The answer is a liberal dose of all three. 

The additional stuff certainly adds new dimensions to the story, intensifying certain aspects of the novel which aren’t as blatant in words. The film is highly sexualised in visuals and in dialogue, offering a substantial juxtaposition to the rather brief descriptions of love-making in the literature. Female characters are also given a voice that is a little more assertive, being allowed to be more open in sharing their hopes, dreams and despairs. Coppola’s point about On The Road needing to be a period piece, seems to be somewhat overlooked bearing in mind that the film is set before the sexual revolution and rise of feminism. The film seems to have a mentality that is a little too influenced by what we know the future will bring. The care-free attitudes exhibited in the novel were something of a revelation in the 1950s because they were a stark contrast to some of the hard facts of life which are diluted in the film to the point that one could almost be forgiven for forgetting a World War and Great Depression had just finished. The requirement to speak to an audience of this generation leads to a distorting of the Beat Generation.

Other aspects of the presentation of the period however are pretty spot on. The wild energy of the parties and gigs certainly make you aware that Jazz was ‘it’ but some enthusiasts may argue that ‘it’ is used a little too sparingly in the soundtrack when you consider that Kerouac’s words read like the improvisational fluidity of Jazz. The cinematography is superb; doing justice to Kerouac’s detailed descriptions and makes you itch for the open road. Salles allows us to enjoy some of the novel’s finer passages either through conversations or via Sal’s narration, to make up for a lack of distinctive dialogue in Kerouac’s works. However this can only occasionally replicate Kerouac’s fluid prose, which made up for the muddled story and kept you on the road, whereas the film can clunk along at times.

I’d briefly like to compare On The Road with two other books that took a long time to get on-screen, The Motorcycle Diaries and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. All three are based around two friends on seemingly aimless journeys that are actually about quests for meaning. I believe that these other stories translate into films better thanks to clearer story structures and having more obvious meaning. The maturation of a young man’s political ideology is easy to spot in Diaries if you have a little bit of knowledge about the revolutionary he’d become, while the drug-driven soul searching of Fear and Loathing leads to discussions about the American Dream and breaking of the counter-culture. What is On The Road about? Masculinity? Maturity? Freedom? Kerouac himself said it "was really a story about two Catholic buddies roaming the country in search of God. And we found him. I found him in the sky, in Market Street San Francisco, and Dean (Neal) had God sweating out of his forehead all the way. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OUT FOR THE HOLY MAN: HE MUST SWEAT FOR GOD. And once he has found Him, the Godhood of God is forever established and really must not be spoken about." This isn’t an overbearing theme in the book which is why vast array of interpretations will be made by readers but the nature of film can result in some simplifying. In On The Road’s case this is a over-focus on Dean and how he will remain a bum despite being a load of fun; thereby downplaying Sal’s own journey of discovery.

Kerouac was quite a complicated man; despite being referred to as the ‘king of the beat generation’ he stated that "I'm not a beatnik, I'm a Catholic." However the film sticks to the sensitive shambler description of Sal rather than looking beyond this like it does with other aspects of the book. Dean embodies a worldwide phenomenon with which many are familiar; mad ones who light up a room but offer nothing beyond that initial exciting spark and eventually fade into memories. While taking nothing away from Hedlund’s brilliant performance, it must be said that Dean is easier to portray and understand which is why Kerouac’s classic story is allowed to become Dean’s decent film.

Old Gold Reviews: Sightseers

Sightseers is an independent British film that appeared on our screens late last year, its small level of marketing mirrors its quaint setting while its immediate cult popularity is testament to its strangely entertaining appeal.

Tina (Alice Lowe) and Chris (Steve Oram) star as an oddball couple setting out on an erotic caravanning odyssey of England’s minor tourist attractions like the Crich Tramway Museum and the Keswick Pencil Museum. You may well question why you’ve come to watch such a film but this will be answered once the laughs start to come and the bodies begin to build up as you follow the journey of these characters that can be endearing and frightening within equal measure.

With inspiration and financial backing from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz director Edgar Wright, Ben Wheatley is able to direct his own blend of slasher comedy with a distinctive British flavour. It can be quite disturbing at times but even these moments may have you either laughing out loud or averting your eyes in horror.

Old Gold Reviews: The Iceman

A dark portrait of the life and career of a contract killer Richard Kuklinski (Michael Shannon). The events that unfold almost appear mafia like at times, the murdering is ceaseless but keep in mind it is based entirely on a real killer who was dubbed the 'iceman' in the 80s. Shannon is fantastically intense, stoic in the most stressful situations but a beast to be unleashed at any time. His tall, thin yet strong stature imposes itself on every scene, which can be alarming and comforting at the same time. It's a biopic somewhere between Taxi Driver and Leon, there is a caring side to Shannon's character but he is also frighteningly realistic and utterly psychotic. Shannon is incredible and is backed by an impressive cast such as Winona Ryder as his oblivious wife, Chris Evans as his ever more manic hitman partner and Ray Liotta as his mob boss. Also look out for Ross from Friends looking like David Seaman of Arsenal fame. 
8/10

Old Gold Reviews: We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks

Alex Gibney’s contemporary documentary adds extra data for the debate still raging about transparency in the digital age by focusing on its biggest celebrity, Julian Assange and the loudest whistleblower ever, Pfc Bradley Manning. Political, legal and allegedly financial restraints prevent both men from representing themselves in their on-going story. Their input, as well as that of the U.S. government, comes from the archives mainly in the form of broadcast news and in the case of Manning from his online activity. Former Wikileakers, former U.S. government officials and still working journalists help Gibney put into context this media story we have been following for the last 4 years and seek to find out more about the people who made it.

Assange and Manning are Gibney’s focus as he provides intriguing biographies about each which run through the film, discussing the ideals and passions that drive them and the qualities that enable and hinder their ability to fulfil them. Enlightening discussions regarding transparency, secrecy and propaganda are made off the back of these stories, but these philosophical issues that make Assange and Manning important don’t distract from emotional and personal core of the film, a character story without its characters.

Accordingly Gibney is unable to tell the definitive truth of the Wikileaks’ saga and he is humble enough to acknowledge as such, unlike the hardliners who make Assange out to be a martyr or a maniac. Such caricatures are an archived source of ridicule, from the US government’s baseless suggestion that Wikileaks has blood on its hands in countries the US military invaded years before to the idea the rape allegations are an unnecessarily convoluted Scandinavian-American conspiracy. Conversely Gibney’s interviewees usually factor in the many ambiguities and contradictions that forge their thinking on the issues and those involved. Most have an intimate connection with the story like Daniel Domscheit-Berg, former Wikileaks spokesperson, Adrian Lamo, the whistleblower of Bradley Manning, and one of Assange’s alleged rape victims.

What is left is a multifaceted documentary to a story most of us already have opinions about. One of the documentaries successes is rejection of the right-vs-wrong, us-versus-them that has belittled some of the issues involved and another is the elevation of the significance and profile of Bradley Manning, the loudest whistleblower we cannot hear due to his incarceration. A fascinating and emotionally engaging film that tells a story we as democratic citizens need to know if we are to understand the political implications of the digital age.

10/10

Old Gold Review: Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa

After decades of filling the airwaves, prime-time telly slots and space on Youtube Alan Partridge finally reaches the final medium with his own film.

Partridge fans will be delighted to see Alan (played by Steve Coogan, obviously) hasn’t mellowed, he remains toe-curlingly awkward as the media’s ‘siege face’ for a hostage situation at Alan’s radio station, North Norfolk Radio. The Partridgisms are as embarrassing and continuous as ever, with an appropriate amount of gross-out moments thrown in for good measure.

The stakes are raised and Alan’s desperation and selfishness find new levels as a result of the siege being commanded by disgruntled DJ Pat Farrell (played by Colm Meaney) but unlike many movie adaptations of TV characters Alan doesn’t get to escape to LA or NYC, he remains in Norfolk (NR) throughout. This allows the film to utilise great characters from before like Michael the Geordie and Alan’s under-appreciated personal assistant Lynn. It also keeps the story fairly grounded, allowing Alan to remain (at least in his mind) a big cheese in a small city and enabling the plot to explore the changes in local radio.

The film will not punish new viewers for their prior ignorance of Alan and fans shouldn’t be disappointed in what is one of the funniest British comedies this year.

Old Gold Reviews: The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson returns to the big-screen after a five-year wait with The Master. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams in a film that showcases yet another overlooked side of the United States’ maturation; its rise and recovery following World War II.

Since its first public announcement in 2009, The Master has become synonymous with Scientology due to the parallels made between its founder L. Ron Hubbard and Hoffman’s character Lancaster Dodd or The Master as he is known to his followers. Anderson acknowledges that Hubbard’s colourful life was a source of inspiration for the film, yet he states that this isn’t a biopic. This is made evident by the focus on Phoenix’s character of Freddie Quill; an alcoholic, horny short-tempered ex-serviceman whose harrowing time in the navy has led to his roaming around the American West Coast before finding ‘The Cause’, a philosophical movement headed by The Master.

Freddie’s journey takes him a long way from the blue Pacific he sailed during his Navy days. Freddie comes across all manner of post-war America life; from a bustling California department store to the domestic cosiness of the Philadelphia suburbs and the vast deserts of Arizona. The beauty of each location is revealed with typically stunning cinematography, with rich colours striking the eye and constant juxtapositions between moments of isolation and intimacy for the characters. The film also provides intriguing moments where the distinction between the Freddie’s reality and fantasy is hard to recognise.

There are fine performances all around from the cast as each injects further intrigue into a story that is as much disturbing as it is interesting. Freddie’s past traumas are openly discussed with The Master as he tries to turn him towards The Cause and the effect of his ordeal is made evident by his strange behaviour and violent outbursts. The Master refers to Freddie as a wild animal that is in need of guidance, which is a goal Freddie simultaneously resists and aspires to throughout the film. Phoenix embodies this indecisive soul, showing the world an almost permanent scowl of contempt while mimicking the hand-on-hips stance of authorative figures like his former commander General MacArthur. On the surface The Master seems to be a superior man to Freddie, bounding with charisma and dictating the mood of every room by his presence usually in a jovial manner, however The Master himself is not immune to primal, albeit more eloquent, reactions to threats in the world. Amy Adams plays the supporting role as The Master’s wife Peggy Dodd. She heads the followers committed to The Cause, whose friendly and polite community is based on their disturbing lack of perspective beyond their ideology.

The Master is a subtle follow-up to There Will Be Blood, Anderson moves away from his explosive masterpiece of material greed and desire to focus instead on how the yearnings of the characters mix with their attempts to find a greater meaning either in themselves or for all humanity. This leads to a film fraught with ambiguity which can frustrate at times, with questions about events prior, during and after the film remaining unanswered, which is in keeping with the spirit of the story.

8/10