Terre d'abondance

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/

There isn't too much to like about Wim Wenders' films over the last twenty years. There have been a few bright spots, but for the most part, Wenders' obsession with America has gotten the worst of him. In his prime, few directors since Antonioni were as adept at depicting inner monologues through silence. Wenders' characters were complicated men of few words.

Over time Wenders love affair with America somehow convinced him that the 'less is more' approach was failing. Wenders threw his greatest strength out the door and substituted it with what would become, over time and many films, his achilles heel: big ideas.

The characters in Land of Plenty aren't really individual people, they are ideas. These characters represent something grander, something excruciatingly ambitious: the American conscience. Lofty goals of this sort often end up as preachy and pretentious and LOP's screenplay is just that. Shot on the cheap, on digital video, LOP feels like noble idea rushed into production without the benefit of enough revisions to weed out the heavy handedness. Films concerned with the traumatic effects of 9/11 are compelled to be both profound and reverential, the problem is profound and reverential seldom make for a worthwhile movie going experience. If there was a rating system based on the number of American flags displayed in a movie, LOP would score full points, as it is, LOP rates very low.

I really disagree with some American comments here, maybe just because I am European, I don't know, but anyway I liked that movie. It is stupid to think that Wenders wanted to represent into the main character a typical American, obviously it is just an extreme position about the fear of anything (common in USA), but it doesn't reflex the society, it is a product of it. It doesn't take a wonderful picture of USA, but at the same time it doesn't distruct it, it want just show the paradoxes of that land, it want to be watched like the "land of plenty" and it is not, but it doesn't mean to be the hell. I understand when Americans find only cliché inside, but some of them are true, your country has fear mania, not all of you but some. In Italy as well we say that everybody dislike Berlusconi, but he is prime minister. But now it's time to speak about the movie: it is nice, characters' work is well-made and elaborated, Location are incredible, they show another USA, different from other movies. I didn't like Michelle Williams because of dowson's creek, but here she is not bad, her character is understood by people, but I think it is the work of Wim.

Superb film. The digital gives the footage a nice effect. There were some great tight shots, and then wide angle landscape. A lot of effort has been put into the paranoia paraphernalia of Paul, and the way Wenders brings this out. I simply adored the way Wenders slotted the characters into a simple plot. I thought the character of Lana was a touch stale, but since she was meant to be the pacifist missionary I'm not sure how else the part could have been played. The social conditions present in the story did tend to be a bit reductionist and instructive, but far from annoying. I will agree with previous comments that it will appeal to European audiences more than American. However, I would disagree that the characters would have been like that before 9/11. It is precisely this tragedy that launches Paul into his hyper-paranoia, the beginnings of which emerged after his experience in the Vietnam war. I did laugh many times at Paul's lunacy. While very different characters, I enjoyed following the film through the eyes of both Lana and Paul. This film is ultimately a Wim Wenders comment on the US, pre and post-9/11. He deserves congrats for tackling the subject, and admiration for the way he went about telling some sides of the story. I will prefer this film to any Moore production, any day.

This is for me the most coherent of the Wim Wenders films I've seen and it's to-date the best attempt to depict post-9/11 America on film. The not-so-subtle symbolism, the superb acting (especially by Michelle Williams), and moving story line, which concerns an attempt to give a homeless Pakistani man a decent burial after he is gunned down in a drive-by shooting, come together to paint a portrait of an America left stunned and somewhat confused.

I was moved by the one scene in which John Diehl's character Paul is informed by his friend that "It's not who we thought," and we see on his face, the hope fading away of ever finding any relief for his vague need for some kind of justice--and this is mirrored by the fading desert sun in the background.

I agree with the other reviewer that these completely American characters may make sense mostly to non-Americans--but that's only a result of the films unflinching objectivity. Watch and learn.

Having lived in several places and now again in LA, I see more of myself and people I know in this film. It seemed that both characters were extreme in their beliefs and actions. I had to ask whether I knew these characters and the answer was scarily "yes". I related to the young lady as a peace seeker more than the older man as a paranoid vet, but as the film moved forward, I became sympathetic for him, as well. Utterly unexpected, considering my political and cultural beliefs! This film could have been a "B" film. Perhaps on the surface it is. But let it sink in. What's underneath is more than what is obvious in its visual/audio texture. What some may disregard because it is barely palpable is what takes this film beyond the expected. It's been three days since I viewed it. It is still with me.