bri-80 Reviews

The Grey Zone (2001)

Incredible film

[2 November 2002]

I've seen this film twice. The first time it was such a shocking,

horrifying spectacle I vowed to never see it again. It is absolutely

among the most graphic, violent films ever made, save slasher/horror films. I saw it again to see what was buried

underneath the gore. It was surprising. As a historical document

alone The Grey Zone is unique and impressive. Countless small

details contribute to its originality: the blue-green color of the

Zyklon B crystals, the sprinklers constantly working the lawn

beside the crematoria, the clear, pretty daylight when the trains

arrive, the intimate building-to-building geography of Birkenau --

only the film Shoah manages to make these small historical

details count so much. What's left to be said about the Holocaust?

These things. Small things. Details. The grass, the sound ovens

make, sunlight hitting brick. Shoes. Luggage.

The Grey Zone is so unique that it has been misinterpreted. There

is virtually no music, nothing to tell you how to feel. It is exactly the

opposite of melodrama. The mundane repetition of the killings

actually numbs you after awhile, and this is intentional since this is

how the main characters are affected. There is no uplifting

message, and no cliched Zionist coda like Schindler's List

suggesting that all the suffering had a destination and a design.

There are some awkward elements in the film. But these are

minor next to the clarity of purpose and originality. The Grey Zone

should not become marginalized in the canon of Holocaust art

because it refuses to be sentimental. Hopefully it will be

referenced and reviewed for a long time.

The Believer (2001)

Brings up more issues than it knows how to deal with. (SPOILERS!)

[6/10 · 3 April 2001]

The premise is fascinating: Daniel, a gifted Jewish boy with a Talmudic sensibility of questioning everything, grows to become a Neo-Nazi skinhead. Why? Because, he argues, Jews are weak...from Abraham (conceding to sacrifice his son Isaac) all the way down the line. He claims a new macho Nazi identity to escape that fate.

Many issues are raised and even more not raised: What about the State of Israel? Hasn't Israel effectively erased the stereotype of the Jewish weakling? The movie raises the issue and quickly tosses it aside.

What about America? Are we really to believe that a middle-class, suburban American Jew in the year 2001 feels so put-upon and such an outsider that he will react in such an extreme way? That issue isn't raised at all.

And what about culture? Are we to believe that Daniel really feels more at home with the ignorant fascist thugs with whom he chooses to associate than with people he can carry on an intelligent conversation with?

Finally, something has to be said about sex. The Neo-Nazi thug scenes are literally dripping with homoeroticism. This is not a criticism, per se, unless you consider how bound the Nazi conception of the Jew was with sexual "perversion," something Daniel would have known all about.

It's a big can of worms, and the film doesn't really seem to want to go there. But how can it not? You can imagine how sexually liberating it was for Daniel to tear off his nerdy Yeshiva garb, throw away his glasses, shave his head, start lifting weights, and begin wearing tight T-shirts dripping with sweat.

It's in these details that you feel that perhaps the film has bitten off more than it can chew.

THE BELIEVER is great when the scenes are intimate. Ryan Gosling and Summer Phoenix both give wonderfully charismatic performances, committing fully to their roles despite any weirdness in the story's logic. The film is worse when it gets melodramatic, and the black-and-white Holocaust "flashbacks/fantasies" (!) only add to that problem, as does the music which tries hard to be haunting.

By the end of the film it's clear that Daniel's rebelliousness only serves to deepen his Jewishness, a paradox that could work beautifully, but ends up being trite, in part because it's predictable. A movie so enthralled with asking questions should be interested in the complicated answers, not in heavy-handed and romantic displays of Jewish piety.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

style over substance

[19 October 2000]

REQUIEM is so thrilling, so gorgeously edited, so detailed and hypnotic...why does it have to have such thin, stereotypical characters? Only Jennifer Connely and Marlon Wayans feel real. Ellen Burstyn plays her heart out trying to give dimension to a stereotype of a Jewish mother who is in essence, an imbecile. I'm sorry but being old and Jewish and living in Brighton Beach does not make you a moron. Jaret Leto similarly struggles with his Jewish version of Tony from Saturday Night Fever...does anybody even have that Brooklyn accent anymore? REQUIEM is a true indicator of where things are at in cinema in the year 2000: unbelievable cinematic virtuosity alongside characterizations that are cliched, nostalgic, and just plain out-of-touch.

Dottie Gets Spanked (1993 TV Short)

One of the best short films Ñever!

[10/10 · 17 October 2000]

DOTTIE GETS SPANKED accomplishes in 30 minutes what most movies can't do in 2 hrs. It's a transforming experience. Somehow, without pretension, clutter or unnecessary detail, the filmmakers manage to convey the soon-to-be queer identity of a child in all its complexity.

Yet the film always feels straightforward, simple, and emotional. Very few films make you cry without making you feel like a dupe, but DOTTIE GETS SPANKED can, and doesn't insult your intelligence either. This is a major film. Bravo!

Party Monster (1998)

Horrible murder sensationalized...

[14 October 2000]

A very entertaining film from the always wry Fenton Baily and Randy Barbato. Too bad that while Angel Melendez was a very sweet man who suffered a horrible death, the film doesn't attempt to portray him with any complexity. If you can allow yourself to forget this fact, it's easy to be swept away by this thumping, flashy doc.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Extremely satisfying, if flawed...

[13 October 2000]

The brilliant chemistry between Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, and Harrison Ford is what made the first STAR WARS trilogy so good. Qui-Gon, Obi Wan, Jar-Jar, and Amidala don't have that edge, so PHANTOM MENANCE isn't as much fun. However, critics who claim that the plot of PHANTOM MENACE is the weak link are really off the mark. The political maneuvering of Senator Palpatine is fascinating, the illustration of the Galactic Senate awesome, and depiction of a society on the brink of an insidious fascist takeover, well, realistic. I admit that the more you know about the Star Wars galaxy, the better PHANTOM MENACE seems to be. So be it. George Lucas has delivered an essential (if flawed) addition to the Star Wars canon.