Winter in wartime (2008)

Directed by Martin Koolhoven / Written by Martin Koolhoven, Mieke de Jong and Paul Jan Nelissen / based on a novel by Jan Terlouw

What happens in war that results with children ending up killing? What is it that makes a person lose his innocence, even though his original intentions were good? What happens to humanity in war?

Michiel, a 14-year-old Dutch boy observes the political motions within and inbetween his adult family members during the German invasion in the second world war. He is suddenly drawn into the scheming as he tries to keep a promise he made to another – not because he has an agenda or understands that of the other, but because he values the promise he gave.

He ends up finding and deciding to take care of an injured British soldier hiding in the woods. He understands that this person too is of value and that his life is worth saving – albeit he might also be doing this because he also wants to take part in some action, as school is closed, the Germans are scary and something needs to be done. He is frustrated with his father who is forced to please the Nazis, and doing things behind his back probably serves as an act of rebellion.

As Michiel follows his instinct to do good and save everyone, he ends up losing his father, horse and most other family members because of this one British soldier. It's like the world is punishing him for trying to be humane in the lap of war. In the end he has a choice over allowing someone who betrayed him to live – yet he chooses to shoot him down. A child of 14 is shown to choose revenge when his losses seemed too much to bear.

So I think about the concept of fair and unfair once again. It is a fact that in the end Michiel had a choice – allowing a man to walk free or to kill him – and this choice he made without anyone forcing him. So what could he have done differently to avoid such a situation to ever take place? Is war a situation where humanity will always lead to such moments of choice; does “to respect all life” always mean loss at war?

The law of war is to always consider your own benefit, and to ensure your losses are at minimum while your gain is maximised. The concept of war never looks for actual solutions. So is it any wonder that within these circumstances single human fates do not find a resolve? When the entire construct around a situation does not support happy endings, how could there ever be any?

The ending of the movie shows others rejoicing and Michiel carrying the burden of his experience alone – like the responsibility of war lies on the shoulders of one instead of everyone. It is also reminded that he is still a child and shown that innocence can be rekindled. I think this is a most important reminder, especially within the context of war. It is very easy to drown in one's bitterness about all the abuse, violence and despair going on on both personal and a global scale, and in this many often start to believe it is impossible to return to that innocence we were born with. I do not agree. Beneath all the experiences we accumulate on top ourselves there still lies that uncorrupted core, although sometimes it might take an extended hand from another to find one's way back again. Even then it all comes back to self to be there to reach out to that aid and pull oneself to the surface once again.

A notion I made: it was refreshing to see a war movie made from an unpolitical point of view, as the narrator was a child. A cool way to present the politics as just that which they are: irrelevant bickering, word play and plotting around when there's actual life to be concerned of underneath all the scheming.

The Fountain (2006)

Directed by Darren Aronofsky / Written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel

This movie is about death. Despite the gruesome-sounding subject, it is caressingly beautiful and not only visually, but also in terms of pacing, music and story. This, I believe, has been a conscious choice by the director to bring more emphasis to his perception of the theme – to show death is not not wholly gruesome even though it is mostly viewed as a bothersome necessity.

There was a juxtaposition between glorifying death and the fear of death, clearly presented and personalized through characters in the funeral scene: Lily speaking of death making us whole, and Tommy refusing to hear and stating he would find a cure for death. It is interesting how the one who actually dies, Izzy, seems to be neither, simply accepting death as it is.

When Izzy has already accepted she is going to die, her husband Tommy still holds on to hope and thus becomes blind to the last moments he could spend with her. His unwillingness to face and accept death is painful to watch as he is thus of no support to his wife who is already going through a process of letting go of fear and approaching death. This is an accurate description of what happens in relationships where one loses oneself for another: if you die, what will I be? Who am I without you? The only reason he worked was to save his wife instead of working for himself and his passion – and realizing there will be time for that after his wife's last moments have passed.

A choice I found pleasing was that neither the glorification or the fear of death was dubbed as a right answer. What matters is Life itself, because all we know of death is that it simply happens. All else is beyond us.

The movie fascinatingly introduces some death mythology. A legend of the Mayans is mentioned, where the “first father”, Adam, dies in order to create the world, and it is illustrated how his body became the roots and his soul the branches of the tree of life – and his head the underworld or life after death, which was believed to reside in a dying star behind a visible nebula in the night sky. To state that the afterlife is within a place that is dying is to me really interesting, as it could be interpreted our illusions of heaven and/or hell are to be evaporated – or the hope that there would be a place we could be “rescued” into.

This myth of Adam becoming the Tree of Life is dubbed as “death as an act of creation”, which I find an interesting thought. It is somewhat brutally illustrated how this happens whether you want this or not – there is no way to cheat death. The scene where the conquistador dies after drinking from the Tree of Life was a key element in this movie, nullifying all hopes of a “quick fix” that would allow us to not face death. The only way to be free, to “set Spain free” as the queen said, is to face death as it is.

Another detail I highly enjoyed was the Inquisitor as a symbol of the cancer tumor. Interesting links here and there. Also, there was an extra feature on the DVD related to “death as an act of creation” titled “Life on Ship”, where it is shown how the yoga-Tommy grows new fungi out of dead fungi. It was an interesting little video of its own, so I recommend to check it out if you have it on your disk.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Directed by Christopher Nolan / Written by Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer, based on the characters by Bob Kane



What I found most thought-provoking in this film was the fact that even though through words it promotes that "anyone can be a hero" (as said by Batman himself, when he states what his original purpose for creating the masked vigilante was), through actions it still tells a story of a single hero who saves everyone else at his own expense. Never do the citizens of Gotham actually act for themselves, nor does anyone expect them to; the arch-evil Bane does tell them to riot and to "take the power back to the people", but he never actually means it, and they never actually do anything about it. The quiet mass of people is still either on the mercy of the evil leader being blindly lead into chaos, or they're waiting for their external savior to come and save them. The police forces did act, though, and they were the only visible mass of relatable people in the movie, but even they are not relatable enough: a police officer is still an authority from the perspective of a common viewer, and thus not "on their level".


If the point of all this was to wake the viewer up to the imbalance of this mindset through the emotions that may occur when Batman supposedly dies, it didn't really get there, so I'm assuming the point was perhaps originally there but then smash boom bang Hollywood and its producers and we have a movie trying to be insightful but not having the balls to do it properly.


This movie is very clearly a product of its time, as it occasionally lingered in the spirit of the Occupy movement. The excessive realism through which the scene at the stock market was portrayed was perhaps a tad too underlining, yet that part of the plot itself managed to show the power hidden in the obscure numbers of stock sales and the influence that part of the financial world altogether may have on a single person. Though again, it was just the hero who suffered the visible consequences.


Also, the line Selina says in the dance scene paints out all the bitterness that dwelled in the hearts of those who went to the streets a year ago, and that of all those who have ever considered themselves poor and/or life to be unfair: "You think this can last? There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us."


Overall this movie had a delicious pile of elements to build upon, and it managed to do it just fine irregardless of the dizzying pace it rampaged forth - it could've done it better, though, and had some of the explosions and chases been cut off, it might have become a spectacle of its own kind. In The Dark Knight Nolan gave the viewers something to care about by giving the characters enough time to grow, but now it seems he trusted everyone in the audience to already know the characters and love them just the same. I wonder if it occurred to him how much a character can change in an 8-year gap.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Directed by David Yates / Written by Steve Kloves (based on a novel by J. K. Rowling)






Instead of focusing on the themes I consider the most improtant in the sixth book of the series (love, friendship, loyalty) the movie concentrated on one of the lighter themes: Teenage relationships. They did manage to make me laugh, though, as they were portrayed very entertainingly yet maintaining the bitterness that's involved in first love and such. Since the books are dialogue-based and the biggest audience will run screaming out of the theatres if a movie consists mainly out of dialogue (booriing! I want explosions!), I know it's always been a challenge to put the story onto the screen. With the sixth book, the most essential part of which consists of Harry and Dumbledore discussing, the challenge has been even bigger. One thing I really missed was the examination of Tom Valedro's personality (as well as Dumbledore's), because understanding the "bad guys" is what makes the story even more interesting. Maybe the american black-and-white perspective is to blame: Bad is bad and good is good? Although this doesn't apply to Draco Malfoy's character, who is given some depth (which I think is mainly because the audience loves the character and it's actor Tom Felton so much). However, this film did work as a movie. It didn't get caught in wanting to show every single event written in the book, but cut out and added things boldly to make this a movie, not an adaptation. In some scenes I still got the feeling a viewer not famailiar to the books might be left out, but considerably less than in the previous parts of the movie series. And by the way: Alan Rickman and Tom Felton kick ass.

A Serious Man (2009)

Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen






I gotta love a movie that makes me want to see it again right away; This movie has got to be deciphered. I have a feeling the story will unravel properly when seeing it for the second time (or third). I also have a feeling I might have to study a bit of Jewish tradition to find all the hidden clues. Man, a movie that's a real challenge! Damn refreshing! Although the story with all its exotic details might also be just a shallow artistic scam, I don't really mind: Exploring it will still be intriguing. Apart from the interesting story, I really love the subtle humor this director duo fills its movies with. I find myself giggling all alone in a full audience! They have really found the essence of black comedy and a fine way to present it: It oozes out of evey character, every picture, every movement. The Coen brothers have a fantastic sense of rhythm when it comes to movies.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Directed by Spike Jonze / Written by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers (based on a book by Maurice Sendak)






I loved how this movie didn't follow the usual blockbuster drama pattern and instead tried to maintain some realism. If it would have followed the usual cycle of drama, Max would have magically found a way to make them all get along; Perhaps the very fact that he was an incompetent kid would have saved everyone from disaster? Luckily that's not how it went, as it would have screwed up the entire storyline. A little kid can't solve the social problems of a community, the members of which all behave like kids themselves - a kid can't be a parent. Games may cheer you up for a while but they won't fix anything. That's all I want to analyze: The better the movie, the less I have to say about it. The imagery was beautiful and I loved the score. Gotta find that soundtrack somewhere.

Avatar (2009)

Written and directed by James Cameron






This movie reminded me of Pocahontas, Jurassic Park and Laputa - all of which I adore. Apparently mashing them up wasn't such a bad idea, since Avatar still succeeded in being an original story despite all the references. Avatar is clearly a product of its time: A judging finger pointing at the ones guilty for destroying our own environment just as full of wonders as the one on Pandora. As a treehugger to the bone I hope the message has reached the thousands of guilty ones sitting everywhere in the audience. Individuals may not have strength over authorities but masses do. I completely fell in love with Pandora and it's people, the culture of the na'vi's. It wasn't mind-blowing, as living inside huge trees and communicating with the nature was already introduced in, for example, Lord of the Rings (elves, anyone?) as well as in many other stories, but I did enjoy it nevertheless. I loved the design of the na'vi race as well as all the flora and fauna; The science-based point of view on mother nature was fascinating. I was suprised to find a reference to the war on terrorism as well. Near the end of the movie, where the evil commander (you know, the "Papa Dragon") holds a speech for his soldiers before the final battle, he says: "Fight terror with terror." These are the words that were used to justify the invasion to Iraq during the early decade and the words that still keep the military forces present. The situation is kind of comparable to the one in the movie: The natives simply try to defend their land from the ones exploiting and raping, and thus may seem aggressive and threatening. War is blind on both sides. The music was, in my case, disturbing, as it kept on reminding me of Titanic. I don't know why James Cameron wanted James Horner to write the score for this spectacle as well: He seems to use the same kind of elements whatever music he writes. I heard the same instruments, same rhythms, same themes even. The native music was the best part of the score, yet it too reminded me of the choral parts in Titanic. The worst parts of the movie were the well-known cliches of american blockbusters: Predictability, happy ending, romantic relationship on the main focus. - I hate predictability: I knew within the first five minutes how the movie was going to roll all the way to the end. Of course he'd stay with the na'vi's, he'd fall in love, learn their ways, betray everyone, be an outcast, boo-hoo, and of course they'd win the ultimate battle (and there is going to be an ultimate battle, of course, with a preceding smaller mid-battle). I would have loved some edge on the ending! The remaining humans all dead instead of exile, just to set an example. Now it was just too smooth to be interesting. - Romance is something people love to focus on, because it's sweet yet bitter and oh-so-familiar. It's easy for the large audience to pay attention to emotions; They don't require thinking since they run on primal instinct. I'm sick and tired of romance, at least in movies. Why must every story revolve around a romantic relationship between two people? Wake up: There's more to life than that! This story as many others would have worked fine, if not better, without the relationship courageously surviving in the middle of all the epic struggle. But all in all it was a good movie: Complete, influential and visually high quality. I wouldn't have noticed it's three hours long (whew) if the 3D-glasses hadn't started to hurt and my neck scream in agony. Most importantly it got me thinking: Even though in the movie they claimed our planet is dead, that we have killed our mother, I still believe the heart of the earth is beating somewhere, in places far from cities like mine. I will travel to those places one day, and when I do I might end up like Jake Sully: never wanting to leave again.