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.

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.

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.

Wim Wenders is a great director and a really honest artist. What he lacks though is a real feel for the US....Going back to his early use of Dennis Hopper, woefully miscast as Tom Ripley, in Our American Friend, Wenders has a weakness for clichés about America rather than finding the real thing. This movie doesn't change that fact. What is essentially a tone poem about the loss of innocence (and maybe common sense) in post 9-11 America turns into a melancholy family drama about two lost souls who would probably have been just as lost before 9/11 as after it. Europeans might find the American 'types' portrayed in this film a validation of how they view the U.S. but most thoughtful Americans will probably be irritated by the simple reductions of the characters. I found Michelle Williams particularly annoying for some reason...maybe it was her blind faith or maybe it was just her complete lack of edge...they don't make women like that in America these days and probably never did. I really admire Mr. Wenders for tackling this subject as American filmmakers seem not to have the courage to do so themselves. In the end though, this is more a European film that will appeal to Euro audiences...whereas it would have been a better project if it were directed more this way. (I saw the film in Paris last week.)

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.