Pray the Devil back to Hell

Yesterday I watched the documentary Pray the Devil back to Hell directed by Gini Reticker. The movie takes place in Liberia, a country in western Africa. The country itself was formed around 1825 by the ACS, American Colonization society, in a hope to return the freed slaves to Africa.  Much like what is going on in Israel, the tribes who already lived on the land have been fighting for years to reclaim what was taken from them. The movie describes how the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace came together to bring a peaceful end to the Second Liberian Civil War.

The Second Liberian Civil war initially started in 1999 when LURD, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy, was formed by the Guinea government. Then in 2003 a second force formed. Together they attacked Liberia using child soldiers and slowly took over all the of the country until they reached the capitol where Charles Taylor and his government where. 

The movie speaks of the horror of war. They have multiple first person accounts of rapes and murders by the conquerors who were "helping the people". The whole movie is narrated by the women who headed Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace. They explain that everyone wanted the natural resources in Liberia and didn't care about the people. In an attempt to escape the murderous rebels ran to the government, who were equally horrible to them but as Leymah Gbowee, the head of the group, explained the people would rather have a devil they knew than one they knew nothing about. 

In a hope to solve the problem she, and other women from her church started the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace. They congregated in the capitol bringing together both Christian and Muslim women. Their idea: a sex strike. They were going to starve their men of sex until they stopped fighting, as well as having a food strike. In the end the government of Liberia began peace talks, which were eventually mediated by the UN and the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace took over reconstruction from the UN and set up a democratic government.

The mood of the film was very interesting. It was very sad because the film makers used a lot of b roll from the actual war. There were many shots of people shot, bleeding out, kids without limbs, and other horrific shots which emphasized the emotion of the film. The director, using first person accounts and b roll, took away from the informational aspect of the movie, because there was so much rampant emotion he never got to explaining other elements of the war. For example, why didn't the government just break up the hunger strike. Or after the rebels blew up part of the US embassy why didn't the US attack like we did in Libya? Questions like these were ignored because of an over use of Pathos. Over all the footage was amazing but at points the emotion got in the way of the facts.

I very much liked how the director used a narrator for the whole movie. She had a very soothing voice and charismatic personality that the viewer had to like her. Plus she had orchestrated the whole strike, so she was incredible.

I would definitely recommend this movie. It is an absolutely amazing story of what people can do without war, without guns, without death. These women, armed only white t shirts, stopped a whole war between three warring factions. It is just incredible what they have done. It shows that everyone can do something to help no matter how bad it seems. Definitely go watch it.

Perks of Being A Wallflower

Last weekend I had an eye opening experience at the movies. I went to go see the Perks of Being a Wallflower. The movie is about the experience of a brilliant student entering high school and trying to fit. After a very disappointing first day, Charlie, Logan Lerman, made two good friends in Sam and Patrick. (Emma Watson and Ezra Miller, respectively) The three of them push each other, and support each other in their own personal wars. Sam must make her way into Penn State, Charlie past his childhood, lack of friends, and Patrick must work out his secret love affair with Brad. This movie had all the components of a cheesy teenage wishy-washy movie, needless to say I wasn't too excited to see it, but at the end of the hour and forty minute movie I was completely and utterly blown away.


Probably the biggest reason the movie was so heart warming is that it touched on so many different issues, it spoke about Friendship, drugs, sexuality, family, love, and sadness. Everyone watching has at least something to relate to. Charlie's friendships are a beautiful thing, when he is most down, with no one therefore him, Sam and Patrick reach out, and when Sam needs help Charlie returns the favor. As Charlie Wither sung, "Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on", this rang strong in this movie. When Patrick is down, eschewed by Brad, Charlie steps in and the two of them grow close in the process of restoring Patrick to his normal self.

Logan Lerman had a career creating performance. He portrays Charlie as an introvert person. When they, Charlie, Sam and Patrick, are at a party towards the beginning of their friendship charlie sits in a corner, but its not simply the action its how that portrays his performance. He looks so awkward, his limbs scrunched together and yet the look on his face shows complete bliss. This really gives life to Charlies character, who although is incredibly awkward around other people, because of his old lack of friends, is okay with it because at least now he has friends. Lerman draws the viewer almost tying you to him, and when he pains, you pain making the themes all so much more powerful.

Emma Watson and Ezra Miller both had incredible performances. Emma Watson played Charlie's love. She was the bad girl, the one that goes to all the parties, gets really wasted, high, and laid, but she is such a lovable character. Partially because of the pretty face; that always helps, but also because she had such a lively personality. Her character is trying to redeem herself, trying to get away from this bad life and at this she is pitch perfect. Miller brings the most life to the movie. His character is always the happy one, the lively one, and the one that makes you smile. He brings his own energy and flair to the movie. In the scene after he gets shut out by Brad, Patrick and Charlie go out and drive about town, on the spur of the moment. Scenes like this, where no matter how hard it is Patrick still is happy and lively make his performance and character great because it brings hope to the movie.

There are many movies were the only reason the movie is at all worth watching is the cinematography. For example Hanna, which had an unoriginal story line and okayish acting but some of the best camera work of the year making it visually appealing. In Perks of Being a Wallflower, the Cinematography took back seat to the acting and story line, but even then the director, Stephen Chbosky, managed to slipped in interesting scenes. For example in the tunnel scene, the camera follows the truck up and over the bridge, revealing all of town with Sam standing on the back of the truck. It is an amazing shot because it shows all of them together can take on the world.

A point Chbosky brought up a lot through out the movie were the letters that charlie wrote to an anonymous friend, who I took to be Charlie's dead best friend because Charlie says at the beginning that felt he abandoned by Michael, his best friend, because Michael shot himself with out even writing so Charlie writes to him as a way of remembrance. The letters represent Charlies emotional status. Towards the beginning they are common, but as the movie progresses and he makes friends they become infrequent. Finally at the end, in  honor of his recovery, the letters come to an end.

I would recommend this movie to just about anyone, admittedly it would be more touching for a high schooler, but because it ranges so many different topics it can be enjoyed by anyone. After watching this movie it left me in awe, I felt completely cleared and open to the world, and for me, that feeling made it incredible. Go see it.

"We accept the love we think we deserve."

Battle Los Angeles . Jonathan Liebesman . PG-13 . 2011
Marine Staff Sergeant, Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), is brought back into the marine core, from his job of training troops in Camp Pedelton, when a series of large meteorites crash down in the oceans near many major world cities. These meteorites turn out to be alien invasion crafts Sergeant Nantz must join forces with 2nd lieutenant Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez) and his platoon to reclaim Los Angeles.

Battle Los Angeles Trailer

This movie cuts the definition of a Dystopian movie a little close, but none the less it is a very good trailer. Battle LA most closely represents bureaucratic and post apocalyptic control. It is an example of post apocalyptic because during the alien apocalypse people who are found with the group of soldiers under Nantz believe that it is a better place, that they must stay with him because they will be safe. It is also an example of Bureaucratic control because everyone has turned to the US government for help, the government now has total control and is the last hope for survival.

The trailer itself was incredible, although the movie was okay, it used many different techniques that although they might not all be helpful for our video were very interesting to witness. The trailer begins with pictures of aliens that keep fading in and out, this puts the viewers mind in the right place. Then a very sad song fades in which slows down the pace of the viewers mind and hart so they can fully take in what they are watching. This is matched up with a lot of clips of death and escape. This is incontrast to the 1984 trailer which uses fast, loud music and many clips to overload the viewers sensory ability and beat the meaning into them, unlike this one which melts the meaning on to them. Both of these techniques seem very effective and are both worth thinking about adding into our trailers. Also A lot of the shots fade in and out. This is an effect that we should definitely add.

Seeking Glory, and Fighting Evil, With a Paddle

by A. O. Scott

The New York Times

The movie review I read was not a very good example, the author, Scott, obviously had a hatred for the movie and therefore his review had a lot of pathos as Ms Cullen would say. It was very emotional and because of this the author seemed to just rant in no particular order. He begins with a quick comparison  between Balls of Fury and Hotrod, basically saying that they are the same and really bad. Then he talks a little about some of the characters, such as Feng, and calls them bad too. He finishes up with a short description of the movie, only short because as he put it, "since it would take me longer to recount the story than it took the screenwriters." He doesn't touch on cinematic aspects at all. 


I believe we must take his example as an example of what not to do. In our projects we should keep our critiques emotionless when it came to describing the aspects of film. When providing one's opinion one can use emotion but, as in this review, emotion during the aspects of film simply clouds one's judgement and doesn't allow one to fairly critique and get their point across. 

My annotated link




BYE!

Andreas