Lawrence of Arabia *****

Director: David Lean
Year: 1962
Based on writings by T.E. Lawrence
Screenplay by: Robert Bolt, Michael Wilson
Cinematographer: Freddie Young

Babel ****

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Year: 2006
Writers: Guillermo Arriaga
Cinematographer: Rodrigo Prieto

21 Grams ****

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Year: 2003
Writer: Guillermo Arriaga
Cinematographer: Rodrigo Prieto

El Infierno *****

Translated Title: "Hell"

Director: Luis Estrada
Year: 2010
Writers: Luis Estrada, Jaime Sampietro
Cinematographer: Damian Garcia

Here is some great film making, perhaps not as polished as Scorcese, but much more powerful. Here is a film who's relevance to its native culture is immense. A film that speaks to Mexico, satirizing its culture in a serious way... totally rooted in truth, and despite the despair felt by the director at the condition of this culture, he doesn't weigh the film down with that despair... he appropriately finds moments for comic relief, understanding that laughing at the culture is a strong form of critique, and yet avoids joke-making. This is a film by mexicans, for mexicans, satirizing the mexican drug-cartel culture. The prelude to the film portrays the poor mexican who decides to go to the US looking for a better life... 20 years later, he's deported back to Mexico and shocked to find that things are WORSE now than when he left 20 years ago (economic crisis, drug war) he finds that the only way to meet his economic needs is to become a narco-trafficer. Then greed and all the pitfalls common among the foolishly greedy befall the hero as he becomes more and more involved... finally ending in a massacre motivated by personal reasons. And there the film seems to end, with this sarcastic 2010 Mexican Bicentennial Celebration of the Mexican Independance which proclaims "nothing to celebrate." Look at the condition Mexico is in, you either starve, or you join the narco-trafficers and you participate in brutal violence until you and your family meet their own violent ends.

The script is marvelously thought out, giving each character a fully developed arch with symbolic meaning. Everyone is bought by their greed for money, although they originally object to the narcotics trafficking... they come around to the idea of being rich no matter the source of the blood money. The film is actually structured very similarly to another great film directed by Luis Estrada, "La Ley de Herodes" which was a critique of the mexican political system, especially the power of the PRI political party which had unchallenged control over the country for more than 70 years, this film even stars the same actor, Damián Alcázar. Alcázar is great in his role, as is Joaquín Cosio as El Cochiloco.

The most poignant part is the epilogue in which after we see the gruesome decline of everyone in the movie, the main character's nephew, the lone survivor and symbol of the next generation, the hope of mexico... decides to "continue the family tradition of idiocy" and become a "narco", thus implying that the cycle continues, and we thus know already that the boy will also meet a bloody fate... it stands as a warning to the youth of mexico looking to get rich quick with the narco-trafficker way of life... and yet the film is not a "don't join the narco-traffickers" message film, its much bigger than that, it satirizes the corruption of the mexican government, and the complicity of even Federal Police and elected officials, and how they all live on the drug-cartel pay-roll because the bribes offered are greater than their government-paid monthly salary. And with an economy so broken that it offers no other jobs that might be pathways to the middle-class, and the United States which deports you back to Mexico... there is no good option... welcome to hell, Viva Mexico!

The Last Station ****

Director: Michael Hoffman

Year: 2009

Novel by: Jay Parini

Adapted by: Michael Hoffman

Cinematographer: Sebastian Edschmid

I feel that it is rare in cinema for someone to critique a liberal, or even more rare, to portray a character in a sincere pursuit of christianity. For being one of the world's main religions, western cinema seems bound and determined to avoid discussing religion and spiritualism in a serious way, and even here, the film manages to scoot around the motivator of its main character... Tolstoy was a christian who from within the religion, fought through his writings to bring it back to the core teachings of Jesus, he advocated peaceful resistance and rejection of the idea of personal property, and his motivation was a love for God and goodness.

But while the script dances around its ideals and avoids serious discussion of God, spiritualism, religion... it does offer up a very good and interesting look at the tensions between idealism and reality. Specifically, the very common contemporary summation of meaning/spirituality/religion which says "its all about love", "all you need is love" "love is the answer" etc. etc. etc.

For many agree on the statement that love is the key, and Tolstoy is right in saying that love is the core of religion (or ought to be) the reality is that every one of us "love and peace"nics fails miserably at applying the principle of love in our everyday lives, in the very real and tangible relationships with our families and friends, even our spouse.

So the ideological men searching exhaustively for intellectual ways to understand their existence try to purify the christian religion by abandoning the strict doctrines of the organized church by returning to the love and freedom you find in the words of Jesus in the gospels. However, these men delude themselves, they live as hypocrites, not understanding how to love and sacrifice their ideals for the sake of the real, flesh and bone women who love them.

Its built upon very old stereotypes, the women want freedom, to live life, enjoy the physical pleasures of sex and wealth without worrying about the rules, but their selfishness manifests itself as materialistic or shallow... while the men self-righteously and very seriously search for a perfect rigid ideology, a code to live by that will keep them clean and pure and sinless but for all their sincerity, cannot avoid that their selfishness manifests itself as being coldy withdrawn from their loved ones, sacrificing real relationships for intangible ideas. But fortunately, the film goes beyond these stereotypes to deliver complete characters.

The movie succeeds because it lives in the tension, the paradox of these things. Each character being sincere, capable of love and great compassion, but also selfish and close-minded. They live in grey, each one still far from perfect, and most of all, the man regarded as a saint, a prophet, a genius.

A very good story, I felt a personal connection to it, because I see myself in these men... eager to intellectually pursue a way of understanding the world, which, if I abide to, will purify me... and yet despite my self-righteousness, I continually fail to show real love to my loved ones and to live out the ideology I profess. You see in these relationships why people are better off in a relationship than left to their own devices... love and relationship is messy, difficult, full of ups and downs, but those conflicts sharpen us, make us better people because our faults are reigned in by the good side of our partner, and their faults are reigned in by our good side. Two are better than one, but keeping two together is not easy.

I really enjoyed the bits of original russian paparazzi footage of Tolstoy, a very nice touch to anchor the story to reality. Well directed and acted, though nothing really stood out as excellent more than the script. Solid movie.