Dust

After having read some reviews of 'Dust' I was not sure if I wanted to see it or not. However, the "David Wenham infatuation" prevailed in the end, and I went as far as to actually purchase the film. It was money well spent, you could say. While the movie would not appeal to general audiences, it left me awestruck. I ended up watching it again, on the same night.

"Wow" is how I describe feeling after the credits rolled (the first and the second time). I don't want to spoil anything for those who have not seen the movie, so I'll just stick to my reactions to it. There was laughter, there were tears, there might have been an "eww" once or twice, there were definitely lustful thoughts of David Wenham (he's rather cute, you know). Acting was superb, though I'd like a few words with the 'dialect coach' (hint: the leads are not American). All in all, a great movie. I highly recommend seeing it at least once.

It's easy to miss what DUST does with the Western's clichés. The movie is a kind of rumination in modern, international terms on THE WILD BUNCH, with some problems (e.g., Joseph Fiennes's Southern accent and arguably too many bloodbaths) and with some remarkable achievements. Chief among these is Manchevski's managing to keep several threads hanging because he pays us the compliment of assuming that we are paying attention, waiting for culmination, like the youngster who finally proves to be the movie's protagonist. We need very few details to make the important connections. The lad is a low-class thief in hock to dirty cops; he confronts an old broad far tougher than he is, who sees his resemblance to the Luke of her memory, a mercenary cowboy who found it easier to kill than love. As she begins a sharp-witted decline to death, she tells Luke's story. The story is full of traps. We think Luke fled to Macedonia because he loves the prostitute his sinister, found-again brother (Fiennes) has married. But Luke and his life are more complicated than that, as we gradually learn, circling through past, present, and the minds of several participants. Manchevski values images, cutting to the old lady's photos from the past, mixing times and spaces within the frame. He insists that we are watching the old lady's story, not even a pretense at reality. At last the youngster takes up the challenge and Luke redeems himself in a final confrontation whose truth is in fiction's need to resolve the central issue: here, that memory is a story which makes time come round to emphasize the dark ironies and pains from which we keep trying to protect ourselves.

I do not understand why people try to comprehend this movie as a real-life story, because there are many "hints" telling viewers not to do so - photographs with characters from different epochs together, modern airplane flying over Macedonia at the beginning of twentieth century, etc. - even the sarcastic homage to spaghetti-western tradition ("hero" killing six or seven people with a single bullet)... In my opinion, it should be viewed as a story about human souls, their connection through time and space, about human fate, where main character, although ill-natured, was "sent by destiny" to a far-away land to do the good deed of his life (Elijah's decision to save life of Macedonian rebel's child at the end of the movie looks more like being driven by some irrational then rational force).

The movie also has its point picturing the way westerns see (and saw) Balkan area - as a confusing battleground where everyone have there objectively justifiable reasons to think they are right - making the whole picture far from "black and white". Still, the "western people" come to do their own business (collect the gold), but end up in a completely different connection with people and territory... Personally, I did not like characters of Edge and Angela, in my opinion they are built as clichés with no good reason. On the other hand, characters of two cowboys, as well as Turkish gang-soldiers and Corto Maltese (comic-book figure well known in Europe), built as stereotypes, perfectly fill the sarcastic, humorous attitude of Filmmaker on profane observance of life...

Firstly, I'm a huge David Wenham fan. Didn't read anything about the plot before renting it. I was really surprised by the film's beginning, having no cowboys or Macedonians in sight. This was an interesting Rashomon-like tale, but I really didn't care for two of the storytellers - the old lady and the burglar. I think the story would've worked better just told from the two brothers point of view; no silly subplot about gangsters and gold coins.

Joseph Fiennes is hardly in the movie, and when he is, he mostly quotes the Bible in a horrid accent. David Wenham's American accent was even worse. For me to say anything negative about Wenham...it must be really bad. He also screamed in anguish at the sky so much I could only think "Mendooooza!" (from the Simpsons' "McBain" movies). Visually, this film was very beautiful, not just because of a handsome lead either, but very engaging use of colors, costumes and landscape. The way images from the past and future collided was very cool. The gun-fight scenes were well choreographed, and pretty damn bloody. Perhaps that's why I found the old lady's section less interesting - less action, less exotic locations.

A few laughs, a few gasps, a bit of sex, a lot of violence, but just too thin of a story. If you arrange the brothers' tale minus the gimmicky time-jumps, the movie would be about an hour long, not 2+ hours. I can't figure why the director didn't just fatten the characters and context of their story and tell it straight through. This is a movie about storytelling, but viewers need a better story. And David Wenham deserves a better movie. Preferably one where he can speak more naturally.

In modern New York, a thief (Adrian Lester) breaks into an old woman's apartment. She surprises him and holds him at gunpoint. She tells him the story about two brothers in the turn of the century. Elijah (Joseph Fiennes) and Luke (David Wenham) have a breakdown in relationship. Luke is drawn to the wild east in Macedonia where the Ottoman is battling a local revolt. He joins a group of bandits pursuing the revolt leader known as The Teacher for the lucrative reward. He gets taken prisoner by the Turks who is joined by his hated brother.

Filmmaker Milcho Manchevski has taken on too much for one movie. It's trying to do too much and ends up stepping on each other. It may work better as an old style violent spaghetti western. Even taken separately, the narrative flow is a bit disjointed. The modern part only adds the trans-generational story. The robbery part isn't that compelling. Without knowing either character, there is nothing to root for or against. It's often problematic to have a character tell the story of the movie. The reliability of the telling is suspect. It's also trying to have some surreal poetry about flying. It's doing too much and gets muddled. This is definitely ambitious and probably too ambitious for its own good.