42

The life of Jackie Robinson gets the treatment you’d expect in Warner Brothers’ perfectly serviceable biography. The chronicle is a suitable document of the first African American to play Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era. Director Brian Helgeland (Payback, A Knight’s Tale) beatific depiction of Jackie Robinson is befitting of how Disney handles their sports pictures. It’s reverent, didactic and compelling. However given the magnitude of Robinson’s breakthrough, I was expecting a bit more grit. Perhaps in the hands of a more contentious director, the action would have seemed more controversial. There’s a brief moment of that in one particular scene involving actor Alan Tudyk as Ben Chapman, the manager of the Phillies who vociferously opposed Robbins’s presence in MLB on the basis of his race. The scenes in which he taunts Robinson with racial epithets was even more disturbing than the many uses of the N-word in the movie Django Unchained. Perhaps that’s because this is a true story but also because of Robinson’s pacifist approach to the abuse that was forced on him. It’s is one of the few instances where you genuinely get a feel for the weight of his struggle.

42 is a polished biography. It’s got beautiful music, bright cinematography and is populated by some nice performances. Chadwick Boseman notably underplays Jackie Robinson in a way that doesn’t feel like he’s grasping for the Academy Award. He’s quite effective. As is Nicole Beharie who plays “the wife” but with an effervescence that made me want to see more of her in future films. Harrison Ford reminds us that he doesn’t always just phone it in. As Branch Rickey, the General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers that signs Robinson to the team, he is truly engaging. 42 hits all the dramatic notes you’d except in a memoir such as this. It’s not particularly deep or insightful, but it is inspiring. Robinson becomes more a symbol through which other people unleash their racial hatred against. I would’ve appreciated a little more detail in the script about the man himself. More vignettes involving his personality as well as his athletic accomplishments in the world of baseball would‘ve been welcome. The lesson appears to be talent and money speak louder than hate. 42 is an admirable addition to baseball pictures that dutifully dramatize the subject in a way that is both pleasant and entertaining.

No

Chile’s very first nominee for Best Foreign Language Film is a political drama about the country’s national referendum held in 1988. The plebiscite concerned whether Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet should extend his rule for another eight-years in office. The vote is simply ‘Yes’ in favor of the idea and ‘No’ for anything else. René Saavedra, an adman played by Gael García Bernal, joins the fight against Pinochet. Saavedra eschews exposing the abuses of the dictator’s regime in his commercials. His revolutionary concept is to pitch the ‘no vote’ much in the same way that he advertises soft drinks. Instead of fear mongering he wants to use catchy jingles, happy people, and rainbows to incite people to come out and make their voice heard.

Director Pablo Larraín shoots the production like a documentary. He utilizes U-matic video tape, the kind used by newscasts in the 80s, to give the film the look from that era. At times it’s a bit too grubby as the production almost looks ugly.  He doesn’t even utilize widescreen so news footage from 1988 is interspersed with fresh material. It’s integrated so perfectly I often didn’t notice the difference. He even showcases actual anti-Pinochet commercials with new scenes of them shooting the ad. The clips are full of people dancing and clapping urging the viewer to vote “No” in cheerful song. These displays are surprisingly light, particularly when contrasted with the reality of Pinochet’s administration. The unexpected lighthearted tone is part of the film’s brilliance but it’s also the way it contrasts with an underlying climate of terror.

No largely succeeds because it makes us understand and care.  Naturally the choice of whether one would want a tyrannical dictator in power seems like an obvious decision. However when that dictator controls the media and every other aspect of society, one’s ability to vote freely is encumbered for fear of retribution. This is especially clear when it comes to Saavedra’s relationship with his young son Simón.  Saavedra starts experiencing escalating threats from pro-Pinochet forces as his ‘No’ ads grow in popularity. Afraid for his child’s life, he leaves Simón in the custody of his estranged wife. The stakes are high. The script really resonates when it exposes just how much danger surrounds this election. It allows us to identify with any country trying to break free from a totalitarian state. It also makes us value and appreciate what a blessing free elections truly are.

Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty is an effective blend of logic and emotion, fact and fiction in depicting the decade long search for Osama Bin Laden. Director Kathryn Bigelow’s follow-up to The Hurt Locker is another drama concerning the military, likewise based on a script by Mark Boal. It starts with a black screen and real recordings of people taken from the World Trade Center on 9/11. Not that we need to rouse feeling for that unforgettable event, it is nevertheless an opening that seizes attention at once. Zero Dark Thirty is the subsequent search for the man behind that terrorist plot.

The thriller filters the saga through the efforts of a young CIA Officer named Maya. Jessica Chastain gives an inspiring performance and one through which the developments are filtered. In this document, we are hit with jargon and technical detail. When she’s first introduced, she appears to be a side character, an observer of Dan, her CIA mentor and Navy Seal, memorably played by Jason Clarke. In a movie where methods are emphasized over personalities, he’s one that stands out. He employs “enhanced interrogation techniques” on a detainee to extract information. As the story progresses we realize Maya is our main protagonist. Her unwavering drive to find the terrorist is her focus. The movie turns into the ultimate procedural, in which various clues must be investigated involving computer work, photographs and informants.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” is a euphemism that includes torture, specifically waterboarding but also entails tactics such as sleep deprivation and humiliation. I wont debate on whether these methods were used because it’s a controversial question with different answers depending on who you ask.. However I will say they are merely presented without support or opposition. To concentrate solely on waterboarding or other coercive techniques that were used by the CIA is really to discount the many other leads and bits of intelligence that the CIA used in determining the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. That’s a very small part of this story.

The narrative brilliantly uses judiciously placed action to galvanize your outrage. One particularly intense scene involves CIA agent Jessica played by Jennifer Ehle and her discovery of a mole, a Jordanian doctor. The breakthrough develops into something that highlights the constant danger that these CIA operatives were under. Their big break becomes a galvanizing incident for the audience. It furthers the anger that 9/11 provoked. Granted there is a definite desire to stop further attacks, but there’s also an acknowledged element of revenge that the moment stirs within the viewer. It allows us to share in Maya’s defeats and increase our understanding of what drives her.

Naturally the struggle to find bin Laden was a 10 year objective that encompasses hundreds of people. Maya is important because she gives the fight a face with which to identify. When she finally feels she has a solid lead on bin Laden’s actual location, she urges the military to strike with an elite force. But the argument of whether they can follow that revelation is a measured discussion rooted in the possible uncertainty that could have dire repercussions if they’re wrong. She’s relatable because she doesn’t seem superhuman, although she has the resolute strength of her convictions. We completely understand her motivation in making these terrorist acts stop immediately. There’s a running gag where she writes the number of days elapsed since they’ve extracted this vital information and nothing has happened. Her frustration is understandable and so we are drawn to her. She’s human and likable.

History has already shown how this mission ends. Yet that doesn’t lesson the tension or excitement. It’s telling that despite the fact that we know this was a success, we are still fascinated by the way it unfolds. Through a blending of action sequences interspersed with data gathering and policy, we get a nuanced portrait. Zero dark thirty is a military designation for an unspecified time after midnight but before sunrise. Here it refers to the time in the dead of night that the raid of Navy SEALs invaded Bin Laden’s Pakistan compound.  The final third of this procedural culminates in the pulse pounding depiction of that raid on the building . It’s an incredibly satisfying ending to everything we’ve watched leading up to that point. This is a movie not a documentary. As with a subject that is shrouded in a high level of secrecy, one must approach the film with a healthy level of skepticism. CIA officials have admitted to conferring with film-makers on the project but insist that the finished picture is a dramatization as opposed to a historical record. And while Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t quite delve as deeply into personalities, the thriller’s information based structure is endlessly entertaining in presenting this fascinating story.

Lincoln

Before I even begin, let me assert, Daniel Day-Lewis is more Lincoln than Lincoln. Beyond a mere performance, he is a complete embodiment of the man. Physically, it was never a question. The actor already suggests the man with his angular features. The makeup is invisible as if this is how the actor has always looked. But aside from his amazing physical transformation, which we expect to be authentic, is the astonishing emotional transformation. He portrays Lincoln as a humble and wise man with a couple well-placed examples of humor. Day-Lewis’ decision to pitch Lincoln’s voice high and thin is speculative at best. We do not have video records to tell us how he spoke and acted. Yet debating whether the performance truly reads Abraham Lincoln is pointless without definitive records in this area. What is relevant is that he unquestionably embodies his temperament. Day-Lewis perfectly conveys the attributes one would anticipate of a man who would lead a nation through one of the most turbulent periods of American history. There’s never a moment in which we the audience doubt his depiction. Most everyone’s work is exemplary, but inconspicuous. Two performances that do scream “notice me” are Tommy Lee Jones as Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, a fervent abolitionist, and Sally Field as Lincoln’s wife Mary Todd Lincoln. They’re hard to miss. Lee Pace is also worth mentioning as the charismatic, but comparatively more understated, Fernando Wood, a Congressman whose sympathies lie with Confederacy.

This is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. The adaptation is based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. However where that novel dealt with his entire presidency, including his first term, Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner have decided to simply focus on the final months of his life in 1865. Lincoln has just been re-elected. The Emancipation Proclamation had been issued a year and a half ago. As an executive order of the president, its controversial nature is brought up. It made ending slavery a war goal, although the measure itself did not outlaw slavery. This then is the account of Abraham Lincoln’s struggle to pass the 13th Amendment and subsequently hasten the end of the Civil War. The amendment has already passed in the Senate, but failed ratification in the House of Representatives. He has now brought it back to a vote. Of the 150 minutes, the events largely deal with Lincoln’s reaching out to the House of Representatives to find the support he needs to pass the Amendment. His many exchanges with his cabinet shed light on his beliefs. Lincoln’s attempts to reconcile conflicting personalities within various legislative factions are what constitute the action.

Lincoln is Daniel Day-Lewis. He is extraordinary in the part and the actor’s contributions cannot be underestimated. He is virtually flawless in re-creating a President that we admittedly have never seen nor heard. Every choice he makes with his portrayal is impeccable. Volume, inflection and gestures are utilized to maximum effect. In Lincoln’s efforts to galvanize Congress in support of the 13th amendment, Day-Lewis make discussions interesting. He is utterly believable in his abilities to persuade and he makes a rather dry subject come alive. You have to commend Spielberg’s chutzpah. The plot isn’t set on the battlefields of the Civil War, but rather the political chambers of Washington. Lincoln unfolds much like a play with copious words spilling out of the mouths of old white men from the floor of the House.  Occasionally you can see the perspective of a modern mind behind Tony Kushner’s dialogue. For example, since it has been established that the Gettysburg address was “the speech that nobody knew” for years after it was uttered, Are we really to believe that four soldiers would be able to recite it back to him verbatim like fanboys? It is a most uncommercial movie in that it wrings drama simply over the deliberation of an idea. Lincoln’s desire to obtain 20 Democratic votes (or abstentions) for the 13th amendment IS the action as it were. Whether you find such a topic fascinating will determine your enjoyment. Personally, I think it’s an easy film to admire, but a difficult one to love. It is very much a history lesson with a message lovingly crafted and made clear by Mr. Spielberg. Still what the director endeavors, most assuredly sets it apart from any other dramatization about the 16th President.

War of the Arrows

A skilled archer and his sister are the sole survivors in a family that has been branded traitors. Nam-yi’s singular purpose in life is to keep his sister safe from harm. 13 years later, on the day of his sister’s wedding, their village is attacked by the Qing Dynasty of China. His sister Ja-in is taken away and he sets out to take down the Qing army and rescue her. Nam-yi’s plodding pursuit of the kidnappers is the entire thrust of this plot. Other than the accomplished costume design, there’s really not much to highlight this action thriller. Despite its extremely limited release in the U.S., this grossed $50 million in South Korea and became the 11th most attended film ever there.

Our fable is set during the second Manchurian invasion of Korea in the 17th century, but you’d never get any of that by watching this movie. Superficial tale is more concerned with endless POV shots of flying arrows in slow motion going back and forth in a display of archery prowess. There is scant historical context or even dialogue for that matter to give depth to the narrative. Even the romantic subplot is forgettable. I suppose there’s drama in cheering a single man going on the offensive armed with nothing more than a bow and arrow. There’s a few mildly interesting battle sequences, but none of them rise above the action of a decent TV show. At one point we are introduced to Jyu Shin-Ta, the leader of Qing Dynasty’s troop. At least he gives a human face to the enemy that solicits some much needed excitement. Unfortunately it’s too little, too late. Only in the final confrontation do we truly get the emotional connection the story lacks. I dare say there’s more character development in the animated Kung Fu Panda.

Gone with the Wind

It’s probably been two decades since I’ve watched Gone with the Wind. Not because I don’t think it’s a wonderful movie, because I do. It’s just that it’s such a time commitment. Its extreme length is a barrier to wanting to re-watch it again. So when Warner Bros. sent me a complementary copy of this historical saga – on Blu-ray no less – I knew the divine movie gods were calling on me to re-visit this tale set during the American Civil War. It also gave me the opportunity to share the experience with some friends who had never seen the film.

I enjoy pointing out that when adjusting for box office inflation, Gone with the Wind is the highest grossing film of all time, even to this day. Nothing comes close. 1977′s Star Wars is the nearest challenger.  It’s a record that will probably never change. So much time has passed since it was released, I think people now assume its success was a foregone conclusion at the time. But Gone with the Wind is rather unconventional. It’s almost 4 hours long, asks us to embrace a female protagonist that behaves in a totally selfish manner and it dares to tell a story of the American Civil War from a white Southern point of view. What surprises is regardless of these questionable distinctions, the drama is a triumph. An engrossing melodramatic romance that manages to entertain on a level in a way few ever even attempt, let alone accomplish. It broke all the rules and still exists as one of the cinema’s most beloved works.

Gone with the Wind is an absolute landmark in filmmaking. Despite its grandiosity, it remains at heart the tale of a man and woman. Scarlett O’Hara is not a typical protagonist. She is selfish, spoiled and insensitive. I dare say she’s a character you’d hate in the hands of a lesser actress. But she’s resourceful and driven as well so we don’t dislike her, not entirely anyway. She‘s too determined and spirited. She’s a bit pathetic too. Her love for her  sister-in-law’s husband, Ashley Wilkes, is both inappropriate and tragic at the same time. Vivien Leigh’s work as Scarlet would not be so engaging if she hadn’t been matched every step of the way by Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. An infamous blockade runner for the Confederacy, his reputation is less than honorable. Intelligent and confident, but also morally questionable.  He is a complicated fellow. Throughout the drama, he is fascinated by Scarlett and her scrappy ways, but he’s frustrated by her ongoing obsession with Ashley Wilkes. His feelings for Scarlet are perfectly believable, in the face of her fickle behavior. Nothing against Robert Donat’s solid work in Goodbye, Mr. Chips, but the fact that Clark Gable did not win for his performance, is one of the great injustices of the Academy Awards. The fact that the movie received ten Oscars is a consolation of sorts, I suppose.

The magnificence of Gone with the Wind goes far beyond our two principals. Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh could have rendered the rest of the cast as unimportant. However, Leslie Howard, Olivia de Havilland, Hattie McDaniel, Thomas Mitchell and Butterfly McQueen contribute significantly in key roles throughout the plot. Every one of them giving an iconic performance that keeps the narrative engrossing. Adapting Margaret Mitchell’s Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel into a gripping and coherent film was not an easy task. Costumes, music, set design, screenplay and cinematography – everything is first rate and presented in a scope never seen before or since. The undertaking was so massive that in many cases, multiple people worked on these elements that weren’t even credited. Orchestrating all of these diverse talents and egos into the cohesive machine that produced this work of art was producer David O. Selznick. It was a colossal production. Given the stakes involved, this could have easily been an expensive disaster. His importance to the success of the picture cannot be overstated. Selznick would produce many classics during his tenure in Hollywood (Rebecca, Spellbound, Duel in the Sun, The Third Man). However Gone with the Wind would endure as his most notable accomplishment.

What else can I offer that hasn’t been already said a million times before? Any film that can run 3 hours and 42 minutes without ever failing to hold the viewer’s interest, is an achievement in itself. Then there’s the cast, everyone deserving of an Academy Award for their emotionally involving work. Add to that the costumes, music, set design that make up the grand historical sweep and you‘ve got a story that astonishes.  To watch this spectacle is to witness the textbook case of how to render an epic. It dazzles in its breadth, and yet at its core, it remains the simple tale of a woman resolved not to lose her Tara, the cotton plantation she calls home. Enter the charming rogue, Rhett, she beguiles and is beguiled by. Watching these two, it’s impossible not to get caught up in their situation. Yes Gone with the Wind is an account on the grandest scale imaginable, but it’s also a story about compelling people. At heart, that is what truly engages in a film that became a cultural phenomenon. It’s the kind of artistic display that makes you truly “give a damn.”

Titanic

James Cameron’s chronicle about the maiden voyage of the “ship of dreams” is simply put, one of the greatest films of all time. Like Gone with the Wind for its era, this was THE epic romance for the 90s generation. Sweeping in both historical charm and emotional intensity, it was the most expensive movie ever made, with an estimated budget of $200 million. It could have been a recipe for bankruptcy for the studio but it ended up earning 1.8 billion worldwide to become the world’s highest grossing picture until Cameron beat his own record with Avatar 12 years later. Now it has been re-released presented in a new 3D print amid much fanfare. While the 3D transfer is adequate, what justifies watching this is the chance to see this saga on the big screen where it really shines best.

What sets Titanic apart is the skillful union of a technically dazzling disaster movie with a captivating art house period piece. Witness how the director deftly draws us into the drama. This takes patience and he lays the groundwork right from the beginning. Cameron uses a framing device where we are introduced to the adult Rose DeWitt Bukater, aged and forgotten in the modern day. As she tells her story, we flashback to 1912, the time of Titanic. The filmmaker didn’t have to frame the action this way. He could have just started 30 minutes in when the Titanic is getting ready to embark, but that’s a testament to his genius, He subtly provides a contemporary audience a deeper bond with this woman who survived. Rose is the woman forced into an engagement with Cal Hockley in order to maintain her family’s status. Jack Dawson is the young vagabond that unexpectedly wins a ticket aboard the same ship. Initially Rose is somewhat difficult to like. She comes across as a spoiled brat and Jack literally confronts her with that same description. But Jack makes her likable. We see she her true personality come through their relationship and we ultimately fall in love with them as a couple. We certainly care for Jack and Rose, our two principals, but Cameron actually takes the time to create involving vignettes around the passengers as well: the ship’s captain, the ship’s designer, the musicians in the band , the travelers in steerage vs. the those in first class. We’re introduced to all of them. This isn’t a group of nameless unknowns.  These is a community with families and feelings and lives that are doomed to die. It makes the final hour that much more tragic.

Titanic is by no means a perfect picture. Of the 14 nominations, it failed to earn one for its screenplay and that’s not entirely a surprise. The script is a bit amateurish in its effort to set characters up with awkward dialogue. Many of the biggest groaners come from Rose’s fiancée, Cal Hockley played by Billy Zane. At the start he declares how indestructible the Titanic is. “It is unsinkable” he asserts “God himself could not sink this ship.” Cue laughter. Then later when discussing art he opines, “Picasso? He won’t amount to a thing. He won’t, trust me.” Ah, the screenwriters clumsily paint Cal as an idiot. I get that. But when Rose laments “Half the people on this ship are going to die” was it really necessary for Cal to sneer, “Not the better half.” And what about his character? Why does Cal settle for a woman who clearly hates him. She makes no secret of the fact that she despises him. Couldn’t Cal find a woman who truly loved him, even for the cad that he is. He’s sophisticated, good looking and very wealthy at least. Was Rose seriously his only option for a wife? But I digress, these are mere quibbles.

Titanic is the embodiment of a gifted director working at the top of his craft. His eye for detail is masterful. Of course there’s that spectacular final act that is the standard for non-stop, heart pounding excitement. But what many directors fail to establish is a cast we sincerely care about. That’s what makes a tragedy something we merely endure versus something we actually tear up over. We should be emotionally connected to the people. Throughout the course of 3 hours and 14 minutes Cameron expertly builds a real connection to our leads. A masterpiece combining technical skill of an action picture with the engaging theatrics of a tear-jerker, James Cameron’s Titanic is a stunning achievement. Critics continue to deride its success as dubious hype over a feature unwarranted of such praise. I disagree, It deserves its place among such popular works as The Sound of Music and Star Wars as one of the great achievements committed to celluloid. This is a film for people who love film.

The Mill and the Cross

What would it be like to step into a great work of art and experience the lives of the people within? That’s the idea behind The Mill and the Cross a languid recreation of “The Way to Calvary,” the 1564 masterpiece by painter Pieter Bruegel. Throughout the film we often see the Flemish renaissance artist painting the scene. But most of the action takes place inside the composition as we observe the community within. It’s an interesting concept, beautifully presented, but the sluggish pace is just too lethargic to enjoy.

For those not familiar with the painting, it represents Christ making his way to his own crucifixion by carrying his cross though a crowded landscape that features hundreds of historic and contemporary figures.  One of the painting’s objectives was seen as protesting the cruelty of the Holy Roman Empire by transposing Christ’s suffering  to the Flanders of his own time. Christ is at the center with a group of his tormentors, but he’s almost hidden amongst the throng of 500 people surrounding him, doing other things. Christ’s passion and religious persecution are examined for a bit, but the picture also spotlights a dozen other characters in brief vignettes as well.

The notion of transforming a painting into a moving picture is an ambitious idea. Unfortunately there simply isn’t enough drama to justify the movie. There’s scarcely any dialogue. What little there is, is rather awkward and clumsily spoken. The story merely lies there to be appreciated much as a painting would be. The problem, this isn’t a painting, but a film where different rules apply. The entire exercise feels academic. Even the well known actors fail to create excitement. Rutger Hauer plays Bruegel with a depression that arouses sadness in the viewer. Michael York is his patron, a wealthy Antwerp merchant.  He’s similarly dreary, giving a routine performance. But the most ludicrous acting choice of all is Charlotte Rampling cast way against type as the Virgin Mary. It’s difficult to imagine an actress less suited to play the Mother of Christ. I suppose this was stunt casting, but the uncharacteristic choice adds nothing to the role.

The actual painting currently hangs in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria. Indeed it would be much more dramatic to gaze upon the actual artwork for 96 minutes than to watch this boring artistic study. I will admit the movie would make the perfect DVD to sell in the gift shop there, or any art gallery for that matter. As art history, the film is visually incredible, but as a cinematic entertainment, it fails.

Project Nim

James Marsh who directed Man on Wire, the 2008 Academy Award winner for Best Documentary, turns his attention to a study in which a baby chimpanzee was raised and nurtured like a human child. Conducted in the early 1970s by Herbert S. Terrace, professor of psychology at Columbia University, the thesis was predicated on the belief that a monkey brought up in this way, could be taught to use American Sign Language as a means to communicate. This then would shed light on the way a vocabulary is acquired and used by individuals. The simian was named Nim Chimpsky, a pun on Noam Chomsky, the celebrated linguist who did not hold these beliefs. Chomsky believed only humans develop language in this fashion.

One might expect a sweet tale regarding a lovable chimpanzee and how similar they are to us. But that is not the story documented here. Right from the start, it’s apparent that this is not going to be a feel good documentary.  It’s the exposé of flawed human behavior that drives the narrative. The goal was to evaluate whether a monkey could comprehend language in a manner comparable to that of a human baby. However, these scientists failed to utilize professional methods. First he was removed from his mother at two weeks, not at birth. Then he was shuttled from “family” to “family” never really establishing a proper connection with any of them.

The arrogance these scientists exhibit is troubling, but from this random sample, a quality that many in the field seem to share. What’s fascinating is this picture suggests not just the selfish motives of these researchers, but of all researchers. The professor in charge, Herbert Terrace, comes across as a rather callous individual. While I believe he and his team had honorable intentions at the outset, the experiment clearly did not end properly, as presented here. However at no time did I ever sense director James Marsh was judging these scientists. He allows them to speak for themselves and their frank honesty is compelling. Many come off as sincere and genuinely caring about Nim’s welfare. You may find yourself agreeing with statements they make, but likewise hating them for what they did. So disturbing was this report, it made me question the validity of animal testing in general and a facility as seemingly innocuous as a zoo.

Based on Elizabeth Hess’s book, Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human, Project Nim is a well presented, but unsettling and thoroughly depressing story. The way the events unfold can be infuriating to behold. It’s much deeper than I expected. This is not some sentimental reminiscence concerning a cute chimp. It’s a document of how poorly this scientific test was regulated. It takes a surprisingly atypical point of view. The documentary goes to great lengths not to misrepresent Nim as human and moreover doesn’t push the humans as barbarians either. I admire that level of impartiality. Yet I wanted to be more emotionally invested in the research. Make no mistake, it made me profoundly sad. It was an affecting chronicle of an experiment gone wrong. But it’s hard to care when the monkey shows more humanity than the people.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

Werner Herzog, eccentric legend of the New German Cinema, directs and narrates this documentary about the Chauvet Caves in France. Discovered in 1994 they are home to the oldest drawings in the world today, dating back over 30,000 years ago. In an effort to preserve the archeological find, the general public are not allowed to enter. The French government has even vigilantly restricted access within the caverns. This then is a rare examination of this historical treasure. The unprecedented look is the film’s biggest asset.

The documentary has sort of a two faced duality to it. When Herzog is filming inside the caves and allows the natural and manmade wonders to speak for themselves, the presentation is otherworldly and magical. The prehistoric drawings are astonishingly well preserved and surprisingly have a lot of artistic style. The appropriate music underscores their beauty. But unfortunately we’re also subjected to talking head interviews of various paleontologists, archaeologists and art experts. By the time a perfume sniffer is imposed on us, the tedium is mind-numbing.

The feature was shot in 3-D using special cameras custom built for the production. It’s difficult to imagine seeing these artifacts any other way. They capture the tactile feel of the cave, giving life to the glittering wonder from within. I’m convinced that this is the future of 3-D filmmaking. Once its novelty use in fiction has worn off, the necessity of 3-D in documentaries will live on. The process is absolutely essential to appreciating the cave’s allure. There is at least 30 minutes of extraordinary footage that beats any informational video seen at your city’s Natural History Museum.  Note: the film is 90 minutes long