FILM REVIEW – THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER (2017)

Review written by Raul De Leon

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

Being familiar with director Yorgos Lanthimos, I knew of the weirdness that I was getting myself into. What I was not expecting was an empty shell of a movie that gets off to its own peculiarity. The Killing of a Sacred Deer is an off-the-wall comedic horror film that tortures both its in-film characters and its audience.

The world of Deer is like a kooky Pleasantville, until terror strikes the Murphy family. Life becomes hell for Steven and family, when Steven’s teenage friend Martin seemingly takes revenge on the Murphy’s for killing his father. Martin’s father was a patient of Stephen’s who died from complications during heart surgery. Martin gets close to the family and develops a relationship with Steven’s daughter Kim, and then one by one, the Murphy family starts to perish in a paranormal manner that is somehow connected to Martin.

Life was hell for me as well as I sat in the theater, forcing my eyes open. Now I know what Alex in A Clockwork Orange felt like. Any escalation is undermined by Lanthimos’ decision to remain ridiculous. His peculiar stamp works against him, and I watched unterrified and uninterested. The film was dull for the large majority because of a lame story line, plain and redundant sets, an unchanging cinema-palette, and an ineffective, annoying ‘horror’ score. Lanthimos misfired on all rounds putting together a boring and inadequate scare.

Unlike The Lobster, the comedic and satirical weirdness here felt painfully forced and thoughtless. Most of it is situated in the way people talk to and act around one another. When Martin meets with the Murphy kids for the first time, he shows pre-pubescent Bob his armpit hair and Kim tells Martin that she started getting her period – not exactly considered normal by modern society’s standards. Additionally, everybody speaks with a lack of emotion and an overdone politeness. The other weirdness lies in the horror-trap that strikes the Murphy’s. They’re not chased by a psycho, or haunted by ghosts, or running from zombies. They just get sick, and it’s unexplainable how. It’s not the weird that blemishes the film but the lack of its depth.

Even though I strongly disliked the film, I refuse to believe that Deer is completely meaningless. In my review for The Lobster (2016), I talk about how Lanthimos raises questions about the nature of modern romantic relationships. Lanthimos’ voice is a lot less apparent with Deer than it is with Lobster. For the most part, the social oddity is to support an overall eeriness. Lanthimos wants his horror embedded in discomfort. But naturally we are still going to question the unexplained paranormal activity and the ambiguous title. “Sacred deer” implies mythology, religion, and/or indigenous culture. The plague that falls upon the Murphy family follows an aboriginal understanding of the world that only Martin comprehends. Which begs the question: Is Martin even doing anything to the Murphy’s or is nature just taking its course?

Although, there is room for thought, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is still rather shallow. Unfortunately it also completely fails as a horror film, unless Lanthimos meant to torture his audience by making a bad movie. If that’s the case then Deer is a huge success.

---

If you liked The Killing of a Sacred Deer, you might also like; Black Swan (2010), Antichrist (2009), The Village (2004), other films by Yorgos Lanthimos.

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – THE LOBSTER (2015)

Review written by Raul De Leon

The Lobster (2015)

Weird, darkly humorous, and thought-provoking are words that best describe The Lobster. Greek-born writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos refuses normalcy and sticks to oddball satire to ridicule society’s view on romantic love. If you enjoy self-aware cinema-quirk like Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom), Jean Pierre-Jeunet (Delicatessen, Amelie), or Terry Gilliam (Brazil, 12 Monkeys) then you’re in good hands. But if you’re the type who likes to stick to realism or ‘Hollywood-realism’, then you might want to avoid this lobster because it’s guaranteed to leave a strange taste in your mouth.

In The Lobster’s city-dystopia, everybody must have a partner. Any adult who does not have a partner must report themselves to the city so they can be placed in a hotel institution for singles. If they cannot manage to find a partner at the hotel within forty-five days, then they are to be transformed into an animal and sent off into the wild.

Yup! It sounds like a plot to a novel, but it isn’t. The Lobster is a completely original screenplay and I love that Lanthimos and Filippou went out in left field here.

Our restrained main character David, breaks up with his 11 year girlfriend and moves into the hotel. While at the hotel, he’s put through all kinds of absurd pro-single regulations and psychological exercises while he impassively tries to find a partner in order to avoid being transformed into a lobster (David’s animal of choice).

Lanthimos has fun playing on specific qualities in modern relationships that might get you questioning your own love life. For example, David pursues a woman who is known to be completely heartless, and in order to be a believable match, David must act as if he were heartless too. If the hotel administration finds that a couple is not a true match, then there are dire consequences. And if a true couple begins having problems, then they are assigned children to help keep them together.

You’ll get some laughs from the ludicrous hotel practices. Every night the maid has David unlock and pull down his chastity-trousers, and lay down on the bed as she robotically rubs her behind all over his crotch. This is to remind the inmates of how innate it is to be in a relationship. Further, masturbation is punishable by extreme means.

Naturally, inmates try to run away from the sickly hotel. These fugitives live in their own kind of singles’-society in the woods. They have to live on their toes because the hotel inmates frequently take a bus to the woods to hunt down and kill them. Life free from the system isn’t as glorious as one would think and not just because of the system. The forest counterculture has absurd rules of its own under a possibly equal authoritarian fist.

The Lobster is full of idiosyncratic madness dealt with a dry hand. Colin Farell gives a thickly Lanthimos-influenced stone-faced performance. Is he supposed to resemble a lobster? I’m not sure because everybody else is quite strange and plastic too. It seems almost every line and action is delivered from wired puppets. Add this to a virtually colorless cinematic palette plus a monotone narration from Rachel Weisz, and you get a serious lack of vibrancy. Makes sense, as this isn’t exactly a free-form way of life.

Through exaggeration, Lanthimos really gets you thinking about how society views and handles relationships. Do we really over-pressure people into relationships? Do too many single people unreasonably refuse to let go of the bachelor the life? I was intrigued that the singles in the woods had the same idea of a ‘match’ as the rest of the world. If two people didn’t carry common attributes then there is no way that they could belong together. Is our view of love that far off the mark? I think Lanthimos believes true love is found in the chemistry between two free souls, but it’s hard to say, as he is clearly operating from an exclusive state of mind.

The Lobster may be too weird for you but it is undeniably full of provocation. In order to give the film a chance, you must spend some time pondering its issues and oddities. You don’t have to like it, but the speculation is worth the effort.

---

If you liked The Lobster, you might also like: Her (2013), Rushmore (1998), Brazil (1985), Dogville (2003).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – YOUR NAME (2016)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Your Name (2016)

Move over Miyazaki! Makoto Shinkai just made the highest grossing anime of all time! I must say that I am surprised. Your Name is a great film but I did not expect such an intellectually stimulating anime to be such a big hit!

Two high school strangers; small town-girl Mitsuha and city-boy Taki, find themselves in the most bizarre situation. Every night when they fall asleep, they become the other person in their dreams. The dreams that are acted out, actually take place in real life. Each one effects the other’s very livelihood. What ensues, is a brain-stirring, fantastical romance that flowers through an ingenious contemplation on the nature of dreams and time.

Shinkai produces a truly one-of-a-kind visionary experience. He throws puzzle pieces onto your lap and let’s you play with them. As you try to piece it together, your emotion towards Mitsuha and Taki overrules and you realize that maybe this puzzle isn’t meant to connect as one precise unified structure. The story is too beautiful to be jammed into a logic compressor, but it’s so sapient that you find your head rattling in a left-brain, right-brain battle.

Your Name relishes in an illogical dreamscape. Mitsuha and Taki swim in this formless waiting room as two lost souls longing for one another. It’s a painful irony, that they can get as close to each other as living in each other’s shoes but cannot experience the other’s physical touch. We yearn for their encounter as much as they do. Shinkai sets it up so that we unconsciously long for the completion of feminine-masculine, country-city, and emotion-rationale, so that the brain hemisphere battle can come to peace.

As many twists and turns the film takes, it runs surprisingly smooth. I found myself especially enjoying the early minutes of the film, lost and wondering as to what is happening along with the characters. The story kicks in motion when they get a grasp on their situation and steadily influence each other’s lives. Then it flows into the combination of wonder and steadiness when they undergo a type of dream amnesia that has something to do with the passing of a comet. Even though they love each other, they just cannot grasp who the other is, finding themselves repeatedly asking the question “what is your name?”.

Everything is fittingly nestled into a colorful vibrancy. The pink and blue twilight match the recurring pink and blue streaking comet that soars so beautifully over the city skyline and open countryside. The comet tails cross over one another, mirroring the film’s conveyance of non-linear time and Mitsuha’s red string of fate that she wears in her hair. The trees, the objects, the people, everything in every scene is glossy, clean, and crisp. Shinkai has made his personal stamp on the wonderful world of animation.

Your Name is a delight that will offer more upon repeated viewings. You may not understand everything that happens the first time around but that’s also part of the fun. Some confusion comes naturally with the film but it is seated into an abundance of love and controlled imagination, making Your Name a unique experience and one of the best films of the year.

---

If you liked Your Name, you might also like: A Silent Voice (2016), The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (2006), Paprika (2006), 2046 (2004), other films by Makoto Shinkai.

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – TANNA (2016)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Tanna (2016)

Who would have thought that a film shot by a two-man crew would be nominated for an Oscar? Martin Butler and Bentley Dean went down to Tanna (a small island of Vanuatu, east of Australia), took a camera and a microphone with them, and created one of the most beautiful and humane films of the year using real indigenous locals. Nobody in the Yakel tribe had ever acted in a film before, let alone even seen one. Their first experience would showcase their spiritual, primeval livelihood and recount an important story from their history that impacts their living today.

In Tanna, arranged marriage between two neighboring kastom tribes, the Yakel and the Imedin, is a strongly upheld tradition in order to keep the peace between the two. But Wawa and Dain are villagers of the same tribe (Yakel), in love, and they refuse to leave each other’s arms. The Yakel chief promises the bachelorette, Wawa, to the Imedin tribe so she can wed one of their young bachelors. Yakel and Imedin have a history of violence and this bridal offering is the only way to avoid war. So it’s bad news for everyone when Wawa runs away with Dain. Both tribes search the island; Imedin to kill Dain and bring Wawa back, and Yakel to bring Wawa back with no harm.

It’s a Romeo and Juliet story but it sets itself so far apart from the other love stories by providing such a true, soulful display of a rare homegrown culture. Tanna doesn’t spend its time playing on your emotions like most romances do. Instead, there is a honing in on lifestyle and beauty. Butler and Dean clearly have a real respect for the native way of life. There is a substantial amount of time spent on the ways of communication, the perspective of the people, the role of arts and crafts, the look and feel of the environment, the handling of politics, the importance of spirit and nature, and the cohesive longing for harmony.

In effect, Tanna effortlessly institutes itself as a documentary in disguise. There is so much to be learned from the way in which all of our ancestors lived at some point. The natives are students of life, just as we are. The incidents taking place within the film must be dealt with properly in order for the natives to continue living in peace. Replace buildings with trees, concrete with dirt, modern homes with huts and it becomes clear that their lives are no different from ours. Planting all aspects around a love-story allows this non-barrier to be evident.

I found my spirit relishing in the wondrous shots of nature. The island of Tanna makes for some of the Earth’s most breathtaking locations and the filmmakers take full advantage of that. When Wawa feels empty, she sits alone atop a tree branch, staring into the peaceful flow of a natural waterfall. The volcano, Mount Yasur, plays an important role to the people. It’s not just hot lava, it’s an entity of self-exploration where the Spirit Mother speaks to the very being of those who look for it. Rightly, the filmmakers let us mesmerize at the passionate red flames that pierce the night’s natural blackness.

Butler and Dean’s decision to emphasize feel and nature, enables authentic performances from the non-actors. There is no need for charades; the people of Tanna are allowed to just be themselves, so no experience is necessary. This approach mostly cancels the possibility of a Streep or a De Niro, but it works. I found Marie Wawa to be the one to excel beyond the realm of non-acting. Maybe she can be an indigenous Hollywood actor?!

At the least, Tanna is impressive and inspirational. Being nominated for an Oscar with with a micro-crew and zero-experience actors is unforeseeable. It’s difficult enough just to make a movie. Butler and Dean give us not just a movie but a gift; a genuine glimpse into a quality of humanity and the planet that goes much too unseen and unexplored.

---

If you liked Tanna, you might also like: Embrace of the Serpent (2015), Tsotsi (2005), Dances With Wolves (1990).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – INHERIT THE WIND (1960)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Inherit the Wind is a classic courtroom drama that will grip and entertain you with its vital material, distinct characters, and outstanding acting. Hollywood has produced many great courtroom dramas in the name of moral justice; this one concerns the right to intellectual freedom.

Wind is an adaptation of a play by the same name, that fictionalizes the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial; a trial in which school teacher, John T. Scopes was accused of violating Tennessee law for teaching human evolution in a high school classroom. Political leader and biblical expert, Matthew Brady comes to the small Christian town to help prosecute Scopes, and his old-time acquaintance and respected legal attorney Henry Drummond arrives to represent the defendant. In this ambitious duel, the whole town is on board with Brady, marching the streets singing “If it’s good enough for Brady, it’s good enough for me”. All odds are stacked against Drummond and Scopes, even though they are clearly in the right.

The subject matter is the most integral aspect of the film’s appeal. Here is a social taboo that is the very vehicle of the story. Wind uses Darwinian evolution vs Biblical creationism as a means to bring forth a direct message to the viewer. Proverbs 11:29: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the Wind”. A passage from the bible is used in a film that criticizes a town’s militant biblical enforcement. This brilliant irony proves playwright, Lawrence’s point that this is not about science vs religion but rather, the right to think. Societies tend to be blindly dogmatic in serving their version of the truth to the table of their own citizens, thus troubling their own house.

What takes Wind to the next level is that this communication is all-inclusive. Because the characters have no choice but to face the controversial dilemma head-on, we get a good look at who these characters really are, what they stand for, and where they’re heading. Rich characterization reaches far beyond just Brady and Drummond. Scope’s wife is caught in the middle of her husband and her father (an authoritarian reverend), and the Brady family mixes in, creating both support and confusion for all. Judge Coffey and influential newspaperman Hornbeck, have a lesson or two to learn themselves. A well thought out script keeps character attributes and plot turns unpredictable and effective. Outstanding acting, keeps everyone and everything believable and relatable.

As you would imagine, much of the film’s best moments take place in court. Ceiling fans spin, personal fans flap, and suspenders and sweat-spots are visible for all to see. This is a hot topic we’re dealing with. Tempers flair, elevating the courtroom-heat to a courtroom-broil. People are pushed to the limits of their beliefs. Not just the people, but the politicians, the court, and the press, all have an agenda and an image to withhold. How is everyone going to handle the pressure?

Inherit the Wind should be shown in classrooms, film-related or not. Director Stanley Kramer respectfully addresses an important aspect of education and life that largely goes unnoticed. Its quality execution keeps Wind standing as one the better courtroom dramas to this day.

---

If you liked Inherit the Wind, you might also like; Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939), 12 Angry Men (1957), To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Judgement at Nuremburg (1961), Witness for the Prosecution (1957), The Verdict (1982).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – GATTACA (1997)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Gattaca (1997)

Gattaca raises the question: What if we were not judged by the color of our skin but rather the genes in our DNA? It will make you think, but it will also bore you and maybe make you cringe – Gattaca is an interesting concept with an average execution.

In the not so distant future, your genes are read at birth. What you are capable of, the probability of disease, and your life expectancy is calculated based on your DNA. Naturally, eugenics is a regular societal practice. Genetic discrimination is illegal, but civilization revolves around it. No serious business is going to turn a blind eye on an employee’s genetic potential.

Vincent Freeman was birthed unnaturally – that is, directly from his mother’s womb. His brother, Anton on the other hand, was born what is considered to be the natural way; genetic modification in a lab. Vincent’s only dream is to travel to outer space, but that dream is exclusively obtainable to those who are genetically superior or “Valid”. So, with the help of a professional, Vincent assumes the identity of Jerome Murrow, a genetically modified Valid, in order to get hired by the elite space exploration company, Gattaca, and hopefully one day prove the world wrong by voyaging to the cosmos.

The idea of genetic prejudice is fascinating and scarily realistic. We are on the fringes of genetically-modified human embryos as we speak. Niccol is very aware of this, and he should be commended for addressing the controversy while it’s still in its infancy. Gattaca will make people think twice about the benefits and repercussions of gene manipulation. However that is as far as Niccol takes us.

Rather than exploring deeper into the morals, science, possibilities, and humanness of genetic modification, Gattaca reduces itself to Hollywood rubble. After the intellectual introduction on a genetic-driven society, we get a redundant drama with familiar plot lines and cliches. There’s a bland love interest, a cheesy brother-bother rivalry, and a shallow resolution. A real let down when Gattaca’s nucleus has all the potential to energize our intellect. The creative process is left hanging out to dry. Niccol continuously shows us how Freeman cheats the system, but fake urine and fake blood samples aren’t exactly innovative ideas. What’s the point of producing a futuristic science fiction piece if in-story practices are modern and familiar? Niccol should have invested more time on novelty and less time on trying to touch your nerves.

Ironically, we know Niccol has the genes for writing. This is the writer of The Truman Show we’re talking about here. But with Gattaca, the pen missed the mark, and so did the direction. Camera setups are about as basic as the three camera television system. In Freeman and Murrow’s residence, the staircase resembles a strand of DNA; a nice visual touch but there’s nothing very artistic beyond that. You would think that a world of deep, unnatural prejudice would produce deep psychical characters but no; they’re all uniform. Actors don’t look too good when there aren’t any internal sentiments to play with.

If you’re going to make a thought provoking sci-fi, then go for it. If you’re going to implement a provocative idea and then centralize on drama, then make sure it’s engrossing. Gattaca tames itself too much intellectually and then slacks dramatically because of habitual story devices, making itself one average viewing.

---

If you liked Gattaca you might also like: Equilibrium (2002), Minority Report (2002), The Matrix (1999), The Fifth Element (1997).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – BADLANDS (1973)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Badlands (1973)

Turn Bonnie and Clyde into two laid-back folk from 1950’s South Dakota, and you’ll get Badlands. Bonnie and Clyde (1967) is a well known American classic. Badlands; not nearly as recognized but just as entertaining.

Lead characters, Kit and Holly, are loosely based off of real life spree killer Charles Starkweather and his teenage accomplice, Caril Ann Fugate. The two run off together after the first murder they commit in their hometown. From then on, these two nonchalant killers live life apart from society, fleeing authorities, and jumping from home to home.

Being the first feature film by Terence Malick (The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven), Badlands really sets the tone for his films to come. If you’re familiar with his work, you know that he expresses a love for nature, animals, and the overall spirit of life. Yeah, ironically. It’s this irony that makes Badlands what it is. Murder isn’t dramatized in the slightest. No rousing music, no tears shed, no screaming or shouting, nothing. Life just goes on as is. In one scene, Kit shoots a man and then opens the door for him so he can spend his final breaths in his home. And while he’s dying, Holly politely asks the guy, “Are you okay?”.

Kit and Holly possess a different kind of psychoticism than we’re used to. Aside from all the killing, they actually come off as pleasant people. While in custody, Kit shakes hands with the officers. They don’t hate humanity or the world or anything. They’re just apathetic about life. After having sex for the first time Holly asks “Is that all there is to it?”. “Yeah” responds Kit. “Gosh, what was everybody talking about?”. “Don’t ask me”. Not even the big nasty does it for them. So how do you make something of this ho-hum life? Well, murder apparently.

Killing is thrilling. They’re unconscious of their addiction, but it’s all they’ve got. Surviving and avoiding handcuffs is one reason to kill, but a lot of their trigger pulling is totally unnecessary. It’s not just murder they get off from, but escaping, robbing, and squatting too. Kit resembles James Dean and says he’s always wanted to be a criminal. You can call him a rebel without a cause, but I think the cause is boredom.

There is no real excitement for the viewer either. Malick likes to kick up his feet and keep a mellow mood with calm characters, beautiful views of nature, and light melodic music. Holly’s innocent Texas-born voice-over softly carries us through their journey and expresses zero concern for all the insanity that is taking place. The intermix of all these elements amounts to an ironically light-hearted journey across the Midwest.

Credit Malick for being able to accomplish something that few filmmakers can. He puts you in touch with something unnameable. After the film, you’ll say you enjoyed it but wonder why. There isn’t any particular scene that stands out. Malick leaves an impression on you with his movie as a whole.

---

If you liked Badlands you might also like; Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Midnight Cowboy (1969), Easy Rider (1969), Rebel Without a Cause (1955), and other films by Terence Malick.

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – TASTE OF CHERRY (1997)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Taste of Cherry (1997)

For some reason, we rarely get films about suicide, and very rarely is it this good. Taste of Cherry is an honest, clear-sighted view on deep self-suffering that fully captures that terrible emotion and its components. With austerity, writer, director Abbas Kiarostami will unforcefully bring you closer to the realization of life as a beautiful miracle.

Low spirited, Mr. Badii drives round and round boundless, barren terrain in search for someone who is willing to bury him after he commits suicide. Even though he offers people a large sum of money for the job, most people refuse out of their respect for life. Badii’s Range Rover winds and winds for a good portion of the ninety-five movie minutes. With all the rejection and emphatic lectures from his offerees, a peaceful suicide proves to be no easy undertaking. If Badii is going to leave this world behind, the world is going to have one final say before it happens.

This single day journey stands for the journey of life itself, with the constant search for relinquishment, in a repetitious cycle that miraculously never really loses its wonder. Each individual that Badii interacts with offers another facet of life and death to the viewer. Over time, a humble lesson on living seeps into your pores, leaving your body at ease with its adverse past experiences.

With just one location, the monotonous earth becomes its own character; a land undoubtedly perceived from the eyes of a suicidal individual. Although lifeless, it is where Badii wants his body to remain. In the midst of his suicidal voyage, Badii takes some time to daze at the moving lumps of soil from the work trucks. Is this where life ends? Largely metaphorical, this landscape will stick in the viewer’s mind, more than any other aspect of the film.

Kiarostami keeps a bland tone to reflect the current state of Badii’s soul. The cinematography is so drab, the film almost looks like it was shot in sepia tone, and it remains so in an appropriate way. The all-around art direction goes unchanged from scene to scene. Life is full of color and variety. But, Badii’s life is over.

What makes Cherry work is that it delivers its contemplation in moderation. Kiarostami is not interested in drama, or grabbing you by the eyes and ears. He would much rather put you to sleep. Depression is that way; it’s weak and unexciting. Badii rides with a passenger and pleads for their burial assistance, then another passenger, and another, and another. Badii doesn’t get upset with their replies, or happy, or anything. He just remains as is like everything else in the film. Everything fits into the emotion of depression, with the possible exception of a rather abnormal ending that I may or may not understand.

What will you take from Taste of Cherry? Hopefully you don’t fall asleep because it does have a rather insipid tenor. Personally, I couldn’t even blink my eyes. The content and emotion is too real. The atmosphere sat me in Badii’s seat. Although character’s speak their part in full on the conditions of taking one’s life, the film never lectures. Instead we get an honest display of raw, unmoving emotion.

---

If you liked Taste of Cherry, you might also like: No Man’s Land (2001), Paris, Texas (1984), The Bicycle Thief (1948) and other films by Abbas Kiarostami.

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – THE SALT OF THE EARTH (2014)

Review written by Raul De Leon

The Salt of the Earth (2014)

While the film crew and Salgado are hiding away in a shack to avoid a hungry bear, the camera remains Salgado’s weapon of choice. He lectures the crew on how the angle they are situated in, is no good for a true, well composed photograph. While kneeling, Salgado falls asleep with his camera in hand. Just in case something happens, he can wake up and quickly snap away.

Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire), in collaboration with Juliano Salgado, documents the life, views, and work of the professional still photographer, Sebastiao Salgado (Julian’s father). Salgado has traveled to over 120 different countries, recording humanity with his camera. Having seen all walks of life, Salgado molds a knowledgeable view of the world that will have you reaching deep inside yourself. Through his sagacious photography, the distinction of authentic and simulated worldly values becomes crystal clear.

Salt covers Salgado’s personal life from birth to present day. Biographical details are told in voice-over, coupled with old Polaroid pictures of Salgado; easily the least interesting aspect of the film. The most compelling material comes in between Salgado’s life details. We study Salgado’s incredible black and white photographs, one after another, while Salgado explains the events taking place in the pictures and sermonizes their significance. Salgado’s talking head is often (kind of awkwardly) superimposed over his photos – communicating that his message is voiced in the prints themselves. The rest of the footage is of Salgado doing the thing he loves most; shooting pictures.

The film opens with images of Brazilian gold diggers working a vast mine pit. “When I reached the edge of that enormous hole, in a split second I saw unfolding before me, the history of mankind. The building of the pyramids, the Tower of Babel, the mines of King Solomon”. When Salgado sees a human, he doesn’t just see a human, he sees their history, their dreams, their foundation. The same goes for landscapes, animals, or any other subject. In an image, Salgado can capture and share his perception of the world around us; the mark of a true artist. Ironically, Salgado does not consider himself an artist but a storyteller.

Salgado’s publications’ are photo-books consisting of his travels in different areas, events, and cultures of the world. He tells us of his times visiting the Rwandan genocide, the Yugoslav civil war, the Kuwaiti oil fires, an African community starved-out by their government,  various indigenous civilizations, and more. His photographs cover the complexity and spirit muddled between the lines of the events. No words need to be spoken, but listening to Salgado’s comments on all of theses tragedies, adventures, and lifestyles is a serious learning experience.

The passionate eyes of Salgado and Wenders elevates Salt from a simple biography to an anthropological survey. You can’t ignore the outlook on life and interpretation of mankind from such an experienced traveler. By conveying the mind of a serious nomadic artist, the audience receives a scholarly vision of the planet.

Holy, ethereal, tragic, and humane, Salgado’s pictures are a whole world in themselves. Go ahead and search the web for Salgado’s pictures; this documentary is about as marvelous as the images you’ll discover. Salt makes evident, that we can find remarkable insight to humanity and the planet through a simple instrument we call – the camera.

---

If you liked The Salt of the Earth, you might also like: Pina (2011), Koyaanisqatsi (1982), Samsara (2011).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – LA LA LAND (2016)

Review written by Raul De Leon

La La Land (2016)

La La Land is a stunningly beautiful dream on the wonders and angst of career chasing in the entertainment capital; Los Angeles. This musical romantic-dramedy fusion dazzles the eyes and tunes the heart with sparkling imagery and bountiful love. Its artistic theatrical expression of the grand Hollywood masquerade sets itself as one of those special American musicals never to be forgotten.

Aspiring actress, Mia, and Jazz pianist, Sebastian, fall in love and tumble through the thorny vineyard of fame, fortune, and ordinary life. Equally passionate and motivated, the two chase dreams together in money-motored, forever-gridlocked, sunny southern California. The bumpy glamour-paved road makes it difficult for Mia and Sebastian to sit comfortably in their seats as artists and as lovers. Their relationship with each other and the Hollywood dream factory are cleverly alluded to with extravagant musical numbers.

The film’s music and dance routines vary in form. Some are grand, some are personal, some don’t include our lead characters, and some are purely musical, doing without dance altogether. The wide spectrum of performances allows for fresh emotional touches every time. The film opens with a musical performance in heavy freeway traffic; big smiles in the wonderland and unceasing horn-honking in the real world. A perfect summary of LA (we actually don’t honk that much; we’re used to the traffic). Music breakouts are always thematically charged. Mix the soaking signification of it all with a touching romance story and top-tier, outside-the-box filmmaking, and you’ve got yourself quite a picture.

Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) proves himself to be one of Hollywood’s best directors. His camera lives in experimental dance, rhythmically composed to La La Land‘s magical sight and sound. Linus Sandgren’s cinematography is masterful. Night shots are a cool blue grace-land. His intentional light manipulation and spotlighting breathes expressive visual cinema. This is why we go the big screen. La La Land lives in a phantasmagorical scope that is larger than life.

Every romance story needs likeable leads. Gosling is his usual self; handsome, charming, genuine, and kinda funny. Stone gives the performance of her career with a spot-on portrayal of a struggling actress. Her voicing and facial expressions brilliantly discharge the mixed emotions of a talent with self-doubt due to repeating rejection. The pair could teach chemistry class together. Whether you’re watching them fight in frustration or dance in classy reverie, these two are always fun and believable. I admit, I had to check if they were a couple in real life after the movie was over. To my dismay, they are not.

Fun, emotional, passionate, creative, and high grade; La La Land gets checks across the board. Even those who are not fond of musicals should give this one a chance. The romance is touching and the imaginative images are too majestic to go unnoticed to our lustful eyes. Congratulations to Damien Chazelle on a truly delightful, one-of-a-kind, melodious tale.

---

If you liked La La Land you might also like: Singin’ in the Rain (1952), The Sound of Music (1965), Chicago (2002), Moulin Rouge (2001).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.