Category: Things I’ve Seen

Well, that didn’t waste any time.
Dealing out a dozen-and-a-half plot twists, mixing in some dialogue that’s fully too clever but works anyway, and running scenes that have their beats honed to perfection like a champion tap dancer – this is amazing, smart TV. It sets up the rest of the season without even trying.
Best stuff in the episode is Amy Acker as Dr Saunders, who has a great storyline with Fran Kranz as Topher. They take a revelation from the end of the last season, one that was offered in almost an off-handed way, and use it to drive the characters full-speed at each other. Pity that Amy Acker’s only available for a handful of episodes this season, she’s got huge presence here (and having watched her early work in Angel recently, it’s great to see how far she’s come).
But, yeah. Dollhouse somehow, miraculously, scored a second season. Broadcast ratings will be abysmal, of course – but this is TV that is worth watching. Thumbs up.
(I probably won’t talk about Dollhouse again until the end of the season. Unless something AMAZING! happens along the way.)

Plot summary: dude is on the moon
Lovely, funny, starchy take on self-knowledge, fate and destiny. Heartwarming effects that don’t use computer techniques. Sam Rockwell as the dude on the moon is ace. Robot companion is well-figured. Nice music. Plot development well-structured, timing its reveals just right, and never trying too hard to blindside the audience. Verra enjoyable.
Go see.

In social psyc class this week we watched Ticket to Heaven, a dramatisation of indoctrination into the Moonies and then being pulled out by determined family and friends. It’s a hell of story, devoting almost its entire run-time to the process of falling under the spell of the cult, and the counter-process of being convinced to leave it behind. It sits right on the tail-end of low-key 70s film realism, with the first section of the film in Toronto full of method-style dialogue, natural light sources, and an integrated, moody soundtrack; by the end it’s switched into early-80s stylisation, with a sweeping score and some clear-cut heroes and villains. Despite these limitations, it provides a compelling vision anchored by a great performance by Nick Mancuso as David, the man who joins the cult.
It held attention in both classes, although the tension-busting gags got more laughter in the second group – I think the first group were too shell-shocked to laugh. It does seem very distant; cults like the Moonies were very much a 70s phenomenon. However, variations on the theme obviously still thrive around the edges of society (and it wasn’t too long ago that a cult was actively recruiting in an NZ university).
What interests me most about cults is the uneasy lines between them and religions, communal living arrangements, alternative lifestyles, even simple pan-cultural acculturation processes; there’s a lot of grey in there. However, what I got talking about after the film in the second class wasn’t what cults are or aren’t, but rather what they demonstrate about ourselves.
Cults highlight what to me is the key lesson in psychology: that our conception of the self as a clearly-defined inner core of identity that drives our behaviour and keeps us cohesive, is wrong. We are massively contingent; who we are is created by who we are with, by the actions we take, by the physiological constraints and stimuli we experience. When we look at a cult and wonder how someone could possibly fall under their spell, we are guilty of not acknowledging this fact. It’s the fundamental attribution error, turned inwards. It’s massively important in working out how to live in the world.
The class humoured me while I ranted and raved on this subject. So that was good.

morgue: Everyone reading this loves Freaks & Geeks, right? Right?
Readers: OF COURSE YES WE DO WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION.
morgue: Well did you know that the story of these characters didn’t actually end at the end of episode 18, Discos and Dragons, with Nick dancing, Daniel dwarfing and Lindsay deading?
Readers: NO NO I DID NOT I SUSPECT YOU ARE ABOUT TO TELL ME ABOUT THIS
morgue: Yes I am. You see, the ultra-neat Yearbook DVD set features on its inside covers a bunch of signatures and messages from the show’s characters to Sam (front) and Lindsay (back). And a few plot developments are revealed!
Readers: DYING OF SUSPENSE NOW SPILL PLZ
morgue: So, from Sam’s pages, we find out that Cindy wants to be friends even though she still thinks Sam’s a jerk, while Todd reckons Cindy is crazy! Alan can’t bring himself to be friendly and writes insults all over Sam’s book! Nick Andopolis thinks Disco sucks! And most importantly, Maureen still wants to hang out with Sam!
Readers: BUT NICK LOVES DISCO NOW
morgue: Don’t be foolish Nick was just into disco because Sarah was and he was just with Sarah because he couldn’t be with Lindsay! Over on Lindsay’s pages we find out that Nick and Sarah broke up (surprise!) and he’s obviously still in love with Lindsay. The secret trip Lindsay took with Kim Kelly was apparently a success, because the mathletes think she went to the academic decathlon, and Kim’s talking about a second mission – presumably her mom and dad found out but kept quiet about it. And! Daniel actually has a coherent explanation for being such a s.o.b all season! Although it’s all spin obviously.
Readers: AND THAT’S IT
morgue: Um, yeah. It’s not exactly a lost episode I guess.
Readers: OH
morgue: No wait – the other thing you need to know. That episode where there’s a viking mascot?

Readers: VIKING MASCOT = TERRIFYING YES I DO
morgue: Well did you know that the dude playing the mascot is… THE BEEF.

Readers: LOL
morgue: (to himself) This was more interesting in my head than it is now in the cold, harsh pixels of reality.
Readers: THE BEEF FALLS OFF THE TABLE IN A VIKING HEAD LOL

When I go to the cinema these days, I want to be dragged in and strapped down by a glassy-tongued freak with popcorn stains on his retina, who then whispers in my ear that he’s going to show me something I’ve never seen before, and then does exactly that.
So I really enjoyed this movie a heck of a lot.
Pearce is right in saying there’s no resonance to it. Nevertheless, it was enough of the film I wanted it to be that I was well pleased.

Rounded off our NZ Flim Fevistal experience with two more flicks:
Rachel (France/Belgium, 2009)
A doco investigating the death of American protester Rachel Corrie in Palestine, “from an Israeli point of view”. Made by Simone Britton, a Moroccan-French Jew who spent years in Israel. Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement protesting the Israeli occupation in Palestine, and died under a bulldozer. The Israeli Defence Force has claimed that it was an accidental death; the protesters claim it was deliberate. Britton’s investigation doesn’t establish clearly one or the other, but does seriously undermine the IDF position. Mostly, however, the film works to contextualize Corrie’s actions, and make sense of the ISM. Corrie comes out looking both pragmatic and compassionate; Britton juxtaposes Corrie’s written description of her empathy for the young members of the IDF with a former soldier reflecting on his experiences, clearly haunted by the things he did. It’s a good film; everyone gets to speak for themselves. I recommend this excellent interview with Britton, by Andrew O’Hehir at Salon.
Everlasting Moments (Sweden, 2008)
Based-on-true-story account tracking a Swedish family from 1907-1917, centred on the formidable wife and mother Maria Larsson, who wins a camera in a lottery and slowly works out what it can offer her. It steers clear of expectation, avoiding easy resolutions to emotional or narrative dilemmas; it is imagined more gently and more responsibly than that. It’s a great film, frequently funny, more often touching, and above all beautiful – the cinematography has been getting a lot of attention and deservedly so, it all looks incredible. (Like all the best films, it made me think – in particular about the transformational power of the camera, what it means for our experience of life that images can be captured and kept; and how transformational this last century has been, that such images are now so omnipresent.)

Third on my flim fevistal slate was Balibo, an Australian dramatisation of the Balibo Five story, and the efforts of subsequent journalist Roger East to uncover the truth.
The Balibo Five are far less well-known than they should be. Basically, they were Australian TV journalists (including one Kiwi) who went into East Timor to document the Indonesian invasion, and were executed when captured by Indonesian forces.
It was an intense film, playing out like a thriller but of course the horrible events depicted were real. Very effectively made, excellent performances, stunning location cinematography (it is, says wikipedia, the first film ever made in East TImor). The only thing that struck a bum note to me was the final fate of Roger East, which did not feel of a piece with the rest of the film; the way it was edited and cut together changed register into melodrama, when the events themselves didn’t need any help. But this is a small criticism only.
The film only had its world premiere a few days ago at the Melbourne fest, where current East Timor president Jose Horta was in attendance. The younger version of Jose is one of the main characters in the film, and it’s a depiction that isn’t entirely flattering. It deserved his presence, though; this film is intended to raise awareness of the depicted events. Film has the power to make stories like this catch in the imagination; I’m going to remember this film much more vividly than I ever remembered the details that I read in various articles a decade ago. This film can only help bring wider understanding of the events of 1975 and the consequences for the region.
An excellent film. Though I’m ready for a happy NZFF flick now plz.