![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[It is late and I don't feel like proof-reading, so - please note there are numerous typos in this post, spelling errors, and grammatical malfunctions. Also I put personal commentary in the review, since I've recently come to the conclusion that is impossible to review anything objectively. I don't care what people say - whether or not they like something is completely dependent on their own personal baggage. Now whether they are conscious of that baggage is another issue entirely. And the baggage? It's personal and often unique. Analyze the person all you wish, you're bound to be wrong about whatever it is.]
Rented Blood Diamond from netflix, which I finally got around to watching tonight. Has only been sitting about for the last two weeks now, waiting my perusual.
The film stars, Leonardo Di Caprio ( who is almost unrecognizable in the role and it may well be the best thing he's done since Gilbert Grape and This Boy's Life), Jennifer Connelly, and Dijimon H. (whose name I cannot spell). Was directed by Edward Zwicik, who you may or may not recall as the writer/producer/director from Thirty-Something and My So Called Life.
Enjoyed this film far more than I expected. And wish I'd gone to see it instead of The Departed last fall. Although doesn't matter - new tv has widescreen capability and is close to 30 inch, so movies look pretty cool on it. But of the two films, this one needs to be seen on a big screen and The Departed really doesn't. Hard not to compare the two in my head, even though they are as different as apples and oranges. Will state that I think DiCaprio was better cast in this one, and his casting makes me wonder what would have happened if Scorsese had flipped DiCaprio and Damon's characters.
In this film, DiCaprio plays an anti-hero mercernary, with redeemption possibilities - which is one of my personal kinks. I adore the doomed anti-hero who redeems himself, even if it is fairly predictable plotwise.
But the film itself is not focused on Di Caprio nor is he the true lead. That is Dijimon.
At the center of the story is Dijimon's journey to save his family from a war torn Sierre Leone. (The country that keeps popping up whenever anyone discusses Isiah Washington - who is making a concentrated effort to help the people over there. The country according to the end credits of the film is now at peace, but it is still impoverished and the people in pain and homeless.)
It is not really a character piece so much as a thematic piece - which is why I didn't expect to like it. As you know, I don't tend to like thematic pieces - find them somewhat preachy. I want a story. Not a lecture. I can go to church for that, and well since I don't like lectures, I stopped doing that ages ago. Never found God in a church. I believe in God. I just don't think God cares much about churches or religion. Just people.
At any rate - this one surprised me, because it does focus on character and does manage to use the characters in a realistic way to explore the themes. They don't feel like pawns on a chess board and their actions do make sense and are complicated.
At the root of the character story - there's the father/son arc. The adoptive father who attempts to destroy or kill the adoptive son, to mold him into his image, bereft of humanity. The demon father - if you like, a trope - I saw most recently explored in the series Supernatural and in Smallville. Here there are no clean metaphors. The demon fathers are all too real. I remember thinking as I watched this film, which is incredibly violent, that demons, vampires, etc...are in a sense our metaphors for the variety of human monsters we encounter. The mind must find a way to cope with these images after all. To make sense of something that does not make sense.
Dijimon H who portrays Solomon Vandy is the good father. Disenfranchised. But who has remained good. The good man in hell. A sort of Orpheus walking through the underworld.
His hell, we are told, is created by the hunt for diamonds, but the film is careful to point out it is not just diamons, if diamonds did not exist, it would be something else. At the time it was released - the diamond industry got huffy and upset over the film - stating it portrayed in in a bad light and that the situation that exists within the time period the film takes place does not exist currently. The film's counter point - is yes it does, just not necessarily with diamonds. That First World countries, or wealthy countries and businesses continue to strip the resources from war-torn Third World countries for their own benefit - not caring that the stripping of those natural resources is fueling the Third World countries conflict, armies, warfare. Allowing those countries competing factions to buy weapons and kill one another. This is not the first time I've seen this message - I read a book a while ago about missonaries by Barbara Kingsolver, can't remember the name of it, that detailed what was going on in The Congo, and showed how wealthy nations came in and stripped the Congo, and helped the guerilla's fight their wars.
But the film isn't just interested about that. It is interested in why - which is another kink of mine. I'm a why girl. Where, what and how don't matter to me as much as Why. I need to know WHY. And I can't understand how anyone can go through this life without wanting to know that. Although I know they do.
Why the people do what they do. And why they don't do something about it. Then of course the how...how do you solve it. Can you? Is it worth even the attempt?
There's a great exchange of lines in the film, which I've heard before, but rather like -
A teacher asks our anti-hero: "You've seen a lot of different people in your lifetime, do you think that people are mainly good or bad?"
Anti-Hero's response after a moment of thought:"They're just people."
Teacher:"Exactly. It is our actions that define who we are. And that changes constantly. A bad man in a moment of love, could save a child - he is no longer a bad man. It is his action in that moment and for that moment that defines him."
The film shows us how this is true. It's a nice counter-point to a review I read this week on the Sopranos finale - about how the final drove home, David Chase's somewhat pessimitic view that people do not and cannot change and are defined. Their actions come from their personality. I disagree with this assessment and it may explain why I stopped watching the Sopranos in the third season, I'd grown bored of the characters, who to me had become stagnant and somewhat plasticine. Not real. They never changed. I knew what they were going to do next. What would happen to them. I knew they wouldn't evolve. Or change. This review seems to state I was right in my assessment. It's one of my buttons. I don't like stories where the characters don't change or evolve. Stay stagnant. I need to see growth or evolution of some sort, or I lose interest.
In Blood Diamond, each character changes and is changed by what happens to them. They are not the same at the end. Their actions define who they are. Their choices. And it is not that predictable. Nor are their choices inevitable. There's a sense of free choice, not fatalism.
I do recommend Blood Diamond. It is, in my opinion at least, the best of DiCaprio's films and amongst the few that I enjoyed watching the actor. Not being a huge DiCaprio fan, that is saying something. Yes, it does get a little preachy at times, and some of the situations are a tad manipulative - in regards to jerking your emotions. I did not cry during it.
But, at the same time - it does say some interesting things about the human condition and ends on a positive note.
Rented Blood Diamond from netflix, which I finally got around to watching tonight. Has only been sitting about for the last two weeks now, waiting my perusual.
The film stars, Leonardo Di Caprio ( who is almost unrecognizable in the role and it may well be the best thing he's done since Gilbert Grape and This Boy's Life), Jennifer Connelly, and Dijimon H. (whose name I cannot spell). Was directed by Edward Zwicik, who you may or may not recall as the writer/producer/director from Thirty-Something and My So Called Life.
Enjoyed this film far more than I expected. And wish I'd gone to see it instead of The Departed last fall. Although doesn't matter - new tv has widescreen capability and is close to 30 inch, so movies look pretty cool on it. But of the two films, this one needs to be seen on a big screen and The Departed really doesn't. Hard not to compare the two in my head, even though they are as different as apples and oranges. Will state that I think DiCaprio was better cast in this one, and his casting makes me wonder what would have happened if Scorsese had flipped DiCaprio and Damon's characters.
In this film, DiCaprio plays an anti-hero mercernary, with redeemption possibilities - which is one of my personal kinks. I adore the doomed anti-hero who redeems himself, even if it is fairly predictable plotwise.
But the film itself is not focused on Di Caprio nor is he the true lead. That is Dijimon.
At the center of the story is Dijimon's journey to save his family from a war torn Sierre Leone. (The country that keeps popping up whenever anyone discusses Isiah Washington - who is making a concentrated effort to help the people over there. The country according to the end credits of the film is now at peace, but it is still impoverished and the people in pain and homeless.)
It is not really a character piece so much as a thematic piece - which is why I didn't expect to like it. As you know, I don't tend to like thematic pieces - find them somewhat preachy. I want a story. Not a lecture. I can go to church for that, and well since I don't like lectures, I stopped doing that ages ago. Never found God in a church. I believe in God. I just don't think God cares much about churches or religion. Just people.
At any rate - this one surprised me, because it does focus on character and does manage to use the characters in a realistic way to explore the themes. They don't feel like pawns on a chess board and their actions do make sense and are complicated.
At the root of the character story - there's the father/son arc. The adoptive father who attempts to destroy or kill the adoptive son, to mold him into his image, bereft of humanity. The demon father - if you like, a trope - I saw most recently explored in the series Supernatural and in Smallville. Here there are no clean metaphors. The demon fathers are all too real. I remember thinking as I watched this film, which is incredibly violent, that demons, vampires, etc...are in a sense our metaphors for the variety of human monsters we encounter. The mind must find a way to cope with these images after all. To make sense of something that does not make sense.
Dijimon H who portrays Solomon Vandy is the good father. Disenfranchised. But who has remained good. The good man in hell. A sort of Orpheus walking through the underworld.
His hell, we are told, is created by the hunt for diamonds, but the film is careful to point out it is not just diamons, if diamonds did not exist, it would be something else. At the time it was released - the diamond industry got huffy and upset over the film - stating it portrayed in in a bad light and that the situation that exists within the time period the film takes place does not exist currently. The film's counter point - is yes it does, just not necessarily with diamonds. That First World countries, or wealthy countries and businesses continue to strip the resources from war-torn Third World countries for their own benefit - not caring that the stripping of those natural resources is fueling the Third World countries conflict, armies, warfare. Allowing those countries competing factions to buy weapons and kill one another. This is not the first time I've seen this message - I read a book a while ago about missonaries by Barbara Kingsolver, can't remember the name of it, that detailed what was going on in The Congo, and showed how wealthy nations came in and stripped the Congo, and helped the guerilla's fight their wars.
But the film isn't just interested about that. It is interested in why - which is another kink of mine. I'm a why girl. Where, what and how don't matter to me as much as Why. I need to know WHY. And I can't understand how anyone can go through this life without wanting to know that. Although I know they do.
Why the people do what they do. And why they don't do something about it. Then of course the how...how do you solve it. Can you? Is it worth even the attempt?
There's a great exchange of lines in the film, which I've heard before, but rather like -
A teacher asks our anti-hero: "You've seen a lot of different people in your lifetime, do you think that people are mainly good or bad?"
Anti-Hero's response after a moment of thought:"They're just people."
Teacher:"Exactly. It is our actions that define who we are. And that changes constantly. A bad man in a moment of love, could save a child - he is no longer a bad man. It is his action in that moment and for that moment that defines him."
The film shows us how this is true. It's a nice counter-point to a review I read this week on the Sopranos finale - about how the final drove home, David Chase's somewhat pessimitic view that people do not and cannot change and are defined. Their actions come from their personality. I disagree with this assessment and it may explain why I stopped watching the Sopranos in the third season, I'd grown bored of the characters, who to me had become stagnant and somewhat plasticine. Not real. They never changed. I knew what they were going to do next. What would happen to them. I knew they wouldn't evolve. Or change. This review seems to state I was right in my assessment. It's one of my buttons. I don't like stories where the characters don't change or evolve. Stay stagnant. I need to see growth or evolution of some sort, or I lose interest.
In Blood Diamond, each character changes and is changed by what happens to them. They are not the same at the end. Their actions define who they are. Their choices. And it is not that predictable. Nor are their choices inevitable. There's a sense of free choice, not fatalism.
I do recommend Blood Diamond. It is, in my opinion at least, the best of DiCaprio's films and amongst the few that I enjoyed watching the actor. Not being a huge DiCaprio fan, that is saying something. Yes, it does get a little preachy at times, and some of the situations are a tad manipulative - in regards to jerking your emotions. I did not cry during it.
But, at the same time - it does say some interesting things about the human condition and ends on a positive note.