Guerra Sem Cortes

The thing we know for sure about de Palma is that there are no accidental or unintentional images, cuts, camera angles or words in his movies. What looks rough was intended to look rough. What looks like a careless frame was there to look careless. This film, like "Hi Mom" & "Greetings" (and even "Get to Know Your Rabbit) is not part of the Hollywood so many "reviewers" leaving their drivel in IMDb (aka the un-united statesmen) are either railing against or rallying behind.

As far as I could tell, this was a look at the world through De Palma's own Snake-eyes - via a camera, and a script HE wrote. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a view of the world from his camera will not look like anybody else's, and most surely won't be subject to anybody else's rules or political agenda.

Back in the day when Martin Scorsese made "The Last Temptation of Christ," I got cornered next to a conversation of religious conservatives who were ranting about the "Jews who control of Hollywood" being behind Scorsese's film. I had to laugh -- and did. They all turned to look at me like I was next in line for the noose -- and so I pointed out that Scorsese was New York Italian Catholic -- and had contemplated the priesthood. And that he'd made so much money and reputation points for studios that no studio, executive, or other influencing body could or would try to influence or control the content of his films.

So again, there's a laugh here if you think De Palma is the tool of any studio, influential group, or left-wing agenda. The truth is, each filmmaker has a point of view that is their own - - or at least the ones who make the films we want to see.

And -- if you think Hollywood -- that herd of cats who make the entertainment which may well be our last exportable natural resource -- is wrangled into the lock-step of an agenda other than making money and making entertainment, then you've obviously never met a writer, an actor, a musician, an artist, a computer nerd, a designer, a makeup artist, a stunt coordinator, or an agent. As a group, the only thing they have in common is lust for MAKING. Individually -- their beliefs are as varied as Tom Cruise and Tom Waits. And their personal agendas may sometimes reach the light in the projector -- or the flash of paparazzi cameras -- or the blare of a talk show microphone.

But the statements made in these point-of-view films are artworks giving voice and image to the mind of the artist. Like Guerneca, Rhapsody in Blue, or Oliver Twist -- art is not just entertainment, beauty, or cleverness -- it is the expression of a personal agenda by its very nature. Artists are meliorists. They believe they can, and that they have the right, to change the world.

so get over yourselves. It's not a plot. It's free speech. And Brian De Palma has always been enamored of not so much speaking his mind -- as filming his mind.

I've read all the reviews above...... The American ones are thumbing down the film; and the rest of the world giving thumbs up... I join the latter group.... A courageous film (not a movie!); says what it wants to say in an understandable, simple way and yet becomes very moving.... This is not a film for people from NYC or Texas (see the very first reviews above); let them go to see the Transformers or Jumper; who'd rather sit back with a half a gallon soda in one hand and bucket of popcorn in the other and enjoy mindless flicks.. Finally an American filmmaker came up with a thinking-man's film and he is to be congratulated.. This film should be prized and shown to every war-blind and ignorant American who still blindly support the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is not a perfect film (one can never make a perfect film over such a horrible story) but yet very moving and pushing one to think over the empty definitions of NeoCons over democracy, freedom; liberty and humanity... A companion piece to In the Valley of Elah, I should say, and very well done Mr DaPalma...

Despite the many criticisms by others on this site, Redacted is a compelling film based on an actual incident that occurred in Baghdad in 2006. Yes, the acting leaves something to be desired, the 'mixed-media' approach is distracting, and there are some manipulative moments (the beheading, the final still); But this is still an eye-opening film on the state of events in Iraq and the trials that *both* Iraqis and Americans have to deal with daily. The scenes at the checkpoint are particularly well done. Some of the dialog between the soldiers in the unit is compelling in its own way; Similarly so the scenes with the Iraqi reporters and 'embeds.'

I've seen all the recent films about Iraq ('Valley of Elah', 'Lions for Lambs', 'Rendition' ) and think that 'Redacted' provides insights none of the others do. In particular, it does an excellent job illustrating the clash between the respective cultures of Iraq and America. (50% of Iraqis can't read the signs at US checkpoints!)

Is this film a bit of an unholy mess? Yes, but see it anyway and make your own mind up. I think this one deserves at least a 6 out of 10.

Redacted (2007) **1/2

Redacted is an interesting and well intentioned, but nevertheless heavy handed picture. It's often a tough and unpleasant film to watch. Its style is unique and works quite well at times, while at others bogs the movie down to a halt.

Redacted is shot from different points of view, mostly through the video camera of private Angel Salizar, who was denied entrance into film school so he joined the army. He is obviously one of the central characters, but he's rarely seen on film; he's the one operating his camera and we hear him often speaking from behind it. This is his ticket into film school, a combat veteran with a video diary: who's going to deny him now? He tapes his buddies as they patrol Sumatra, play cards, and talk. When we're not watching his camera, we're watching either security cams, a documentary by a French crew on the soldiers, a news crew, or what appear to be videos posted on YouTube. It creates an interesting - if not totally successful - approach to narrative, and at times creates the sense that you are actually watching a documentary - which I'm sure was DePalma's intention.

I'm sure that everyone by now, given the massive controversy surrounding the film, knows what will happen. US soldiers go on a revenge raid after one of their comrades is killed by an IED. Drunk with rage, sexual deprivation, and sadism they storm a house they raided - for no apparent reason then either - days before and found nothing, but arrested the male head of the house anyway. They go back to rape the man's 15 year old daughter, and one of them kills her and her entire family. Salizar is one of the soldiers who goes, rigging his camera up to his helmet so as to be the fly on the wall, documenting what happens. Another soldier goes as well to make sure nothing happens, but is forced at gunpoint to not interfere.

I don't' think that redacted is an anti-soldier movie at all in reality. Most of the soldiers are disenchanted with the war, just want to go home and want nothing to do with the rape and want nothing more than to see justice done, but are forced to stay quiet. We get to see some scenes where one soldier is being persuaded by his father, an army man, to keep quiet, and an attack on his story by military superiors when he attempts to tell them. These scenes, especially the latter, I would have liked to see more of. After all the film is supposed to be about the way stories are suppressed and diverted when they are deemed unsavory to the credibility of the USA. The film gets bogged down in showing us how it's being made, when it should be showing us more of the "redaction," if you will.

The use of non-actors, or inexperienced ones, occasionally works to the advantage of the attempts to create a documentary like feel. When people know they are on camera, they get uncomfortable and the way the actors are not able to give movie star performances works to this end. However there are other times, particularly moments of big speeches that it works against it. It doesn't help that these speeches are almost always over the top and heavy handed. Moments of the film are nearly laughable, and those moments make this a hard film to review. On the one hand I want to call it a mess; on the other hand I would like to compliment its messiness. In the end though, Redacted simply is a bit too much of a mess to overcome its heavy handed and sluggish execution.

There are no actual problems with the message of the movie and it does not vilify the troops as a whole. I would even go so far as to say that it is quite even-handed when you consider the facts surrounding reality. If you are out of tune with reality, and still adhere to the false reality that the USA can do no wrong, then I'm sure you'll find it offensive.

There are a couple of shocking moments in the film. One includes an IED explosion, the killing of a pregnant Iraqi thanks to a misunderstanding at a checkpoint, and another scene involving a kidnapped soldier. The ending however is probably the most powerful, and gruesome portion of the film.

The final moments, under the heading "Collateral Damage," show the bloodied, dismembered, and dead bodies of Iraqi men, women and children - the only doctoring done, is the digital covering of their faces. On that note, I will take the same course as the film, and end this review.

Redacted (2007)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

U.S. soldiers working at a checkpoint in Iraq see a 15-year-old girl, which gets them hard so they eventually rape her, murder her and her family and then set them on fire. It's really hard to judge this movie because on one hand it's pretty well made but that's no excuse for the propaganda coming at you every single second of the film. There's no question this is an anti-Iraq movie made by anti-Iraq people and that's why we see the things we do. Every negative heard about American troops is on display here, which is why this film is so one sided and why I couldn't enjoy the movie. I don't give a rats butt what ones opinion on the war is but a movie needs to be open and look at all sides of an issue but this is just like a Michael Moore film as we see one side and that's the side of the director and not necessarily a side with all facts. The American soldiers are all show as crazy, raping idiots who would probably be too stupid to have a job if they weren't in the Army. Is this a good way to show troops? The Iraqi people are shown as innocent victims yet we never see the ones going around blowing innocent people up. Wait a minute, we actually do in the film when one soldier has his head cut off but the film shows this as the right thing to do to the soldier. I could go on and on about this political propaganda in this film but the actually rape case is something DePalma did before with his Vietnam film Casualties of War. The film taking one incident and trying to show it as everyday stuff is just as crazy as The Birth of a Nation. I think it would be fair to say that De Palma has lost a lot of his talent over the past few decades and it's getting harder and harder to get a good film from him. I'll end my review on this last opinion. I find it funny that celebs in Hollywood think they can bring peace to the world, end hunger, magically make dueling sides like one another and rebuild a community yet they can't even make a good movie. Perhaps it's just me but if they can't even make good films or pick a good screenplay then how in the hell are they going to have the brains to do something bigger?