ylmzyldz

While "Please Vote for Me" has an interesting subject and an interesting way to look at it, being a part of the "Why Democracy?" series, it fails to make a point about democracy, while only seeming to.

First of all, while not wanting to sound political and unlike the common opinion, I don't think what happens in the film has anything to do with China. These children are third-graders and even if they have their own personalities, in a class monitor election with a campaign, they are basically dependent on their parents. Yes, Cheng Cheng wants to have authority and the Luo Lei beats other kids up but after all, they are children for god's sake! The majority of the behavior that they display in this film is typical of a third grader, regardless of how communist or capitalist a country he or she may live in. I must say there are times when the documentary seems artificial, as in one candidate plans to sabotage another's act in the talent show. It is very unlikely that a kid at this age would reveal such a plan to a friend in front of the camera; these are not kids that are too stupid to tell right from wrong. This age is a time when guilt plays an important role in the child's life.

The only sound comment the film makes about democracy is the view of the parents. Rather than seeing this election as an opportunity for their child to learn about democracy, self-confidence, winning and losing, most of them take it as a chance for their kid (and perhaps themselves) to show others that s/he is better than everyone else, with whatever means necessary. For example, Cheng Cheng has a mother who belittles him, pushes him constantly and doesn't seem to appreciate him at all and this may account for his desire to have his classmates under control, because his self-confidence is always undermined at home. The film does a better job of analyzing the behavior of the parents than making a point about democracy or democracy in China, for that matter. The scenes showing the school children chanting and exercising in disturbing unity didn't add much to it, either because the election process did not seem to be related with what was happening outside and if it were, the film made no effort to mention how.

I wouldn't want to discourage anybody from seeing this film, but I think it is a disappointing film which fails to deliver what it seems to be promising.

I believe Ron Howard would make a great filmmaker if he were a little more unconventional. In his best movies, he has no "faults" but there is always something essential missing. In "Frost/Nixon", this something was context. If anyone who knew nothing of Watergate watched the movie, he would think Frost was a hero for making Nixon confess (sort of). He never did give the "trial" the film said the American people wanted. Using the information gathered during 3 days of research based on the "hunch" of a research partner, Nixon can no longer keep up the face. And, the film suggests, it is not because he is cornered, it is because he, too, is a human and has a conscience and he wants to confess anyway. As if Woodward and Bernstein or hundreds of researchers in the Watergate trial hadn't gotten to him even a little bit. The film has no build-up and no complex characters, in the sense that even the characters in fact are complex, they are not developed that way in this film. Frost, a womanizer with a future to secure and Nixon, a fallen president with a reputation to reclaim. That's all we see and really, there is not much more to get. For the real drama about Watergate, everyone, "All the President's Men" is a must see.

After watching "Night on Earth", it is not hard to see why Jim Jarmusch is regarded among the greatest of independent filmmakers. Brilliance pours from every scene of this movie. As you probably know, the film takes place in five taxi cabs in five different cities on the same night. In a film with a such format, it is tempting to comment on "which segment is superior" but this would be missing the point entirely because "Night on Earth" is greater than the sum of its five parts, although it is true that the five segments can stand easily on their own. The L.A. segment portrays two very different women, for whom expectations from life differ completely and yet they are both content with who they are and they can somehow connect at some level. The N.Y. segment is hilarious, especially the part played by Rosie Perez. The trio in the taxi can only come together in New York, I guess. The Paris segment works so perfectly on so many different levels. It mainly raises questions about prejudices, not just about where people come from but simply about regarding others who are not like us. At the end, it leaves you asking "who is more blind?". The infamous segment in Rome is comedy at its purest and Roberto Benigni in top form. I guess it will be the most bizarre and entertaining confession I will have ever heard of. The Helsinki segment seems to end the film on a sad note but in my opinion, it actually says more: Although we sympathize with the two "talking" passengers since they sympathize with the taxi driver, it is again these two who are inconsiderate to their friend. And as for the driver, although he is deeply sad and wounded, this sadness is a little self-centered and he has no pity to those whom he can actually help. As a whole, in addition to being a very good comedy to make you laugh, this film makes you contemplate about life, people, space and time. It opens in L.A. just about when it is getting dark and ends in Helsinki at dawn. While you actually know that these stories are taking place at the same time, it feels as if you have witnessed a night go by on Earth and have made a unique journey.