flasuss

In The Valley of Elah, Paul Haggis' 2nd film, is a definitive improvement over Crash, his controversial debut picture about racism and racial relations set in Los Angeles, which may rank among the worst Academy Award-winning movies of all time. For the most part, it avoids the over-the-top moments that became infamous in his previous work, and it seems to try to escape from moments done for shock-value alone. Still, even though it could have been worse, Mr. Haggis has failed to make a good movie.

Even his admirers admit that the Oscar-winner writer is not very subtle, but, while in Million Dollar Baby and The Flags of Our Fathers (both movies had screenplays adapted by him), Clint Eastwood managed to do great films, by, among other things, injecting minimalism and seeing beyond stereotypes, Haggis' directing lacks the capacity of making the already unexceptional screenplays work. His heavy-hand is quite clear in several moments, like in some of the scenes with Susan Sarandon (in one of her worst performances to date), and, specially, in the ending, which certainly will make some Bush and war opponents smile, but, even for most of those who were against both from the beginning (including this reviewer), the way the message is presented kills any chance of it work, with it's brutal lack of subtlety and elegance; like in Crash, Haggis not only cannot let viewers get to their own conclusions by making the the point blatantly obvious, but has to beat it in the head of the audience over and over again. Also,not unlike his first feature, what he is saying is far from being a fresh and new insight, and the writer/director ends up underrating the intelligence of the viewer, making the movie even less enjoyable.

The cast does the best they can, for the most part; while the previously mentioned Susan Sarandon disappoints, Charlize Theron delivers a solid performance as a single mother who is not respected by her fellow co-workers, and Josh Brolin and Jason Patric have smaller roles, but do a good job.

Still, if the movie has any redeeming quality, is without a doubt the magnificent work of Tommy Lee Jones. Except for Daniel Day Lewis, no actor was as important to his movie this year as he was here, but unlike the former, Jones doesn't have a masterpiece being built around him, and has to carry the movie on his own; and he actually manages to do so for most of the time, avoiding any excess that a lesser actor would commit, and making his character believable and sympathetic. While the single Oscar he received was for the Fugitive, almost 15 years ago, his two performances in 2007 (the other one was as sheriff Ed Bell in No Country For Old Men) will be the ones he'll be remembered for.

You know that everything is possible and cinema has no limits when the most austere, minimalist and anti-conventional director of all-time shoots his version of the story of Camelot... and makes a masterpiece. In the first shot we see two unknown knights having a typical medieval fight; one of them eventually is hit and fall dead, and some blood runs through the ground. The winner goes away. But the difference is that it is shown in the most raw way possible, without any kind of beauty or visual show to please the audience. That's the essence of Bresson's cinema: "only the necessary", said the master. Then, after the credits, we see that is not the Holy Grail story, the traditional story, but what happens next, it begins were the legend ends. The knights return demoralized to the kingdom. Their leader, Percival, is lost, and Lancelot blames himself and his adultery with Guinevere as the reason that the Grail was not found- the search for it was, for him, also the search for God. The Queen is not convinced, and ask his love with words which have nothing extraordinary alone; however, the emotionless way she asks makes it unusual, and somewhat disturbing. The knights are completely demystified and shown not as legend, but men, and men which lack something: is it love, God, a reason to live now that their search is over (and was unsuccessful)? Maybe all that, maybe more, but the fact is that eventually it will explode, and Camelot's decadence will be inevitable. Bresson's ultra-naturalistic and anti-conventional style makes it's images very powerful. The best are a tournament when he applies one of his principles "to give something for the ears and then for the eyes, never both", increasing the effect of the combats, which would have seem even foolish otherwise, and the ending, which is a very shocking one. Because of all that, Lancelot of the Lake is one of the finest films of one of cinema's greatest masters. Mainstream audiences will probably hate it, but one who's eager to see another side of a very known story should see it.

PS: I'm quoting out of memory, so it maybe not be the exacts Bresson's words

I was expecting something very inferior to Dogville, which is, but i forgot that it did not need to be as good to be great. Again, one or another person (many of them not very bright) will say that it's only anti-American crap, but, again, it's more, way more than that: a brutal critic to the idealism which recognizes no national barriers and can be applied to any ideology, without any exception that i know; Communism/Socialism and Christianism specially comes to my mind; Grace could be seen as the socialist leader who brings the Marxism and releases the workers (the slaves) from oppression of the bourgeoisie (Mam and her family), or the priest with the word of God to the savages (again the slaves), and punishing the sinners (Mam and her family one more time). The weak point is that aesthetically is not close to be as interesting as his previous film, and i think that Trier knew it and so the style is not so important here. Bryce Dallas Howard delivers a great performance, and does not try to imitate Nicole Kidman, but create her own vision of the character, like they were 2 sides of the same person. In my opinion, this one is only edged by Dogville in Von Trier's career.