Beasts of No Nation (2015) Review

“God. When I’m closing my eyes, I am seeing the rainy
season in my village. You can be finding the ground is
washing away beneath your feet.
Nothing is ever for sure.
And everything is always changing.”
– Agu

Thus is the epithet of Netflix’s newest blockbuster project. Coming to a laptop near you, Beasts of No Nation is a gripping tale about a young boy in an unnamed African state subjected to forced conscription as a child soldier. In his journey, the audience (us) is placed in an uncomfortable position as a witness to the numerous atrocities committed in warfare by young children, including rape, torture, summary execution, looting, drug abuse, and of course, killing. This is all based on a novel by Uzodinma Iweala, a sociologist whose masterpiece earned him numerous awards. It is never enough to say that the director, Cary Fukunaga, simply created a masterful work of art with the depiction of the bushes’ beautiful scenery, constantly shifting from one setting to another, and one color to another.

And that is the main theme of the story: change.

“God…I have killed a man. It is the worst sin.
But I am knowing too. It is the right thing to do.”
– Agu

Agu, the innocent child of a loving family in a fairly mundane village, was suddenly forced to witness the death of his close family members and survive the harsh environment of the jungle in a single day. And without any merciful time to grieve, he was found the next day by rebel forces NDF and thrust into a world where no child should ever have to be in. This change of events could only happen due to the debilitating circumstances of war, but it was surely exacerbated by the one man training machine, the Commandant. Idris Elba needs no words, because the world knew and expected a stellar performance from the world-class actor. But the spotlight must surely shine on the young actor who played Agu, Abraham Atta, whose phenomenal portrayal of the slow and painful singeing of childhood innocence can be demonstrated merely with his eyes alone.

It is this character who demonstrates the nature of change as he descends the path to loss and then emerge to something akin to catatonia, while his surroundings are constantly shifting with time. Not even the color, in this boy’s mind, can avoid the forceful hand of change. In an instant, the greenness of the jungle can change to a blossomy pink. Perhaps this could be the effect of the drugs kids are forced to snort, or perhaps this is a defense mechanism to cope with his changing worldview. Even the inner politics within the rebellion’s hierarchy has changed with the times, and that was critical to the progression of the Commandant’s force for the months to come. One thing’s for sure: Agu has horribly lost something that can never be gained back.

“But we should not fear change. We are strong.”
– Commandant

This movie is not without its setbacks. I can see why folks can get a little bored with the movie’s pace, because the beginning and middle parts certainly started very slowly. Even to those who hadn’t read the novel like me, we all know what’s going to happen to the village. We all know how this movie will end. I believe Fukunaga realized that and tried to fill the gaps with the subject material itself, rather than focus on proceeding the events of the movie in a tight 1-hour-and-a-half time slot.

God was also a central tenet in Agu’s character. You would think it odd to believe that a child can be so faithful to a being at a young age, but I would posit that perhaps God is a metaphor for so much of Agu’s past life that he couldn’t let go. And yet, even his faith in God has been shaken to the point where this movie’s theme of change is ultimately exemplified.

“Mother, I can only be talking to you now.
Because God is not listening.”
– Agu

I am reminded of a story I have read a long time ago: A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah. This is a memoir of Beah’s experiences as a former child soldier in Sierra Leone. The pacing of this novel and the movie is so starkly similar, it was almost like re-reading that book in a different color: a family whose life was torn due to the war; a child who escaped briefly and was later caught by the rebels; a father-figure commander who was harsh but protective of his flock; and an ultimate salvation in the end. For those who were severely touched by this movie, I highly recommend you read Beah’s memoir.

As a final point, I shall end with a quote that so fits the movie’s title and message that I couldn’t possibly ignore it:

“We are just the wild animals now.
With no place to be going.”
– Agu

I hope that many of you check this movie out. A powerful message to a powerful generation. 9/10.

CitizenFour (2014) Review

Pic Source: DemocracyNow.org

What a mind-blowing piece of work. This is certainly one of the most daring exposés to have ever been conducted in the history of mankind. For me, it looked like it was straight out of a Bourne movie with a hint of Big Brother-esque realism in it, which is the really frightening part about this documentary.

Here we have Edward Snowden, the famed whistleblower who revealed the NSA’s extensive spy network. The film traces the steps of Snowden’s revelations, starting with his initial contact with several journalists, including Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian who wrote the initial story that sparked the global debate on government surveillance. We observe the group’s nervous collaboration on the best route to unveiling the intelligence agencies’ actions while avoiding capture and taking protective precautions.

For a person like me, who was curious of Edward Snowden’s personality and motives, this documentary unveiled much more than details of the spying scandal. I felt a deep connection with the people in the film, a sense of unity in the face of a petrifying totalitarian-esque obscurity that threatened to erase the existence of this entire debacle. When I watched the film, I really did feel like somebody was breathing down my neck, closely observing my actions through the small camera on my laptop as I contemplated, and dare I say applauded, Snowden’s whistleblowing actions.

The director arranged a fantastic work at piecing together the chronicity of Snowden’s revelations (in the eyes of various news outlets like CNN) with his calm but frantic pacing in the Hong Kong hotel, all the while echoing a gloomy guitar riff in the background. At times, you would feel your heart race as certain suspicious events occur, like the sudden fire alarms that you would think have been deliberately caused by the watching overseer. It isn’t as hyped up as you would think, though, because of course you would not see doors busting down and guns blazing (which we all look forward to in the next Oliver Stone production). This is a film that purely portrays the timeline of unveiling, from 2013 onward. I salute the brave efforts of all the individuals involved.

Overall, a great documentary and nod to all the Guy Fawkes-wearing freedom supporters out there. 9.5/10

Show Me A Hero Review (2015) – Full Review

I initially reviewed the first two episodes, amazed by its great potential to create a fantastic miniseries on procedural politics that places less emphasis on power dynamics between different parties. Alas, I’m afraid that as the show progressed in the next four episodes, power dynamics became the centerpiece of Wasicsko’s story.

However, I do appreciate that the political drama is more acceptable in the sense that it can’t be as downright abhorrent and ridiculous as House of Cards politics, which is certainly entertaining to watch! For example, we don’t see the big guy towering over a meek politician demanding his “complete and absolute loyalty.” Instead, in reference to the show’s title, we watch the hero’s Greek tragedy play out as he falls from grace, while the powers that be claim responsibility for the success of the housing programs he pushed.

So let’s explore the entirety of the series itself. Based on a novel with the titular name, HBO’s Show Me a Hero is mostly about the government of Yonkers attempting to integrate the poor, mostly minority-occupied neighborhoods into the mostly white, middle-class areas through federally mandated public housing. In that process, the story centers around the young councilman (and soon mayor) Nick Wasicsko. His story was told initially in a very Milk-esque manner of storytelling. Yet as the newer episodes came through, his story is melted away to shine the spotlight on the other major characters, Doreen, Norma, Billie (black individuals who move from the projects to the new townhouses), and Mary (the white, middle-class activist whose ideologies are challenged by the forces that run the government and the mob mentality).

Initially, the first two episodes shied away from your traditional greasy, grimy-handed, stab-in-the-back, tit-for-tat power politics that you see in many popular political dramas today, including the likes of House of Cards, Boss, and Scandal. I described this process in my original review as aspirational politics in the first episode, and procedural politics in the second. The portrayal of the show’s procedural interactions is, in fact, a very closely replicated display of real-life procedure in typical mayor-council governments, rather than the hyped-out shady dealings we are so used to from House of Cards and the Ides of March.

Then comes the next four episodes, and here you see Wasicsko’s troublesome fight to be in the game again. That’s the part that irked me, because I truly thought that the show didn’t need to become “that political drama” just like many others. It brilliantly portrayed the mundane governmental proceedings as something exciting (and inherently flawed) in the first two episodes, and that’s the formula that would’ve finished the series beautifully had the creator kept it in the series. I do absolutely love Alfred Molina’s portrayal of Mayor Spallone, though. This actor never fails to deliver a brilliant performance.

What I do appreciate though is that the series maintained what I pointed out earlier: the great exchange between the mindset of policy-making/debating and the outcry of popular inclinations. Beautifully choreographed, the council chambers can suddenly be in uproars as all logic is thrown out of the window. Folks do not care about what makes sense anymore, as passions overtake reasons in a staunchly anti-Socratic fashion, something that we are so used to nowadays with Donald Trump’s theatrics and the Planned Parenthood fiasco. This was later underlined beautifully by Wasicsko’s comment on the “silent majority” later.

There’s not a lack of humanism in this show either. Personal flaws are explored in each of the individuals affected by the housing program, and we see them grow and eventually overcome their challenges and superstitions. Also, I can’t help shake the feeling that perhaps the creator intends to send a message to viewers stating that yes, the silent majority ought to speak out and not let the superstitious loud minority drown out their voices (a great nod to Ferguson or the radical right outcries indeed).

There were certain moments when anyone who watched The Wire would recognize the big nod to the great show. For example, the scene of Judge Sand discussing the housing case with two other guys in a shot that is so reminiscent of McNulty’s interaction with his judge friend in the first episode, a Wire fan would be insane not to have noticed. Spallone’s photographic snapshots of black kids on the street doing “suspicious” things? Thank you Carver and Herc. Clark Peters (Lester Freamon) and Michael Potts (Brother Mouzone) also make nice appearances for all us Wire fanatics.

Of course, when all is said and done, we come back to our hero Wasicsko. While the rest of the world go about their daily lives, Nick is facing his own demons that no one understands. This show started with his aspirations, and then it ends with his demoralization. It is strange to think that such a guy who was introduced to us as a chill and infallible person can tremble for something as small as reputation. Maybe that’s the tragedy that F. Scott Fitzgerald told us about, but I have a hard time accepting it as realistic. It is based on a true story though, no? And maybe back in the 80s, reputation was all we cared about before the internet burst into scene (and celebrity trash).

It is what it is. My revised review: 7/10.

Show Me A Hero Review (2015) – First Two Episodes

Based on a novel with the titular name, HBO has recently released this miniseries called Show Me a Hero (in reference to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s quote “Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy”). The series is mostly about the government of Yonkers attempting to integrate the poor, mostly minority-occupied neighborhoods into the mostly white, middle-class areas through federally mandated public housing. In that process, the story centers around the young councilman (and soon mayor) Nick Wasicsko in a very Milk-esque manner of storytelling.

Let’s talk about the substance of the matter now. I designed this review site to provide an insight on the political aspects of the film, as you the reader can read all about its artistic motif from other well-reputed sources. My job here is to try and convince you why you may or may not want to watch this show based on its political substance and portrayal, rather than its aesthetic prowess.

The show isn’t your traditional greasy, grimy-handed, stab-in-the-back, tit-for-tat power politics that you see in many popular political dramas today, including the likes of House of Cards, Boss, and Scandal. If anything, I would describe it in my own words as aspirational politics in the first episode, and procedural politics in the second. The portrayal of the show’s procedural interactions is, in fact, a very closely replicated display of real-life procedure in typical mayor-council governments, rather than the hyped-out shady dealings we are so used to from House of Cards and the Ides of March. Here’s the part that I most appreciate: a central principle the writers attempted to display is the great exchange between the mindset of policy-making/debating and the outcry of popular inclinations. Beautifully choreographed, the council chambers can suddenly be in uproars as all logic is thrown out of the window. Folks do not care about what makes sense anymore, as passions overtake reasons in a staunchly anti-Socratic fashion, something that we are so used to nowadays with Donald Trump’s theatrics and the Planned Parenthood fiasco.

The scenes of procedural politics are then shifted to display, naturally, the human aspects of the main characters of the series, namely: Wasicsko, a Hispanic mother working long hours, a loving African American couple facing drug-related issues, an old African American woman dealing with impending diabetic retinopathy, and an old white middle-class couple watching the scenes unfold on TV. While these scenes are irrelevant for my discussion purposes, it is important to note that the human aspects add depth to the characters and serve to paint the background of the overall themes of policy-and-life reciprocity, as well as bluntly explaining segregated neighborhoods. You can clearly observe the influence of the creator’s previous show The Wire, providing a brilliant and dynamic interplay between the policy world and the world of the regular folks.

But back to the politics, we can almost see the internal struggle within Wasicsko and the other councilmen on the issue of affordable housing. Portrayed in this show beautifully is the idea that sometimes, smart politics sometimes cannot play well with popular politics. Yet as we know, real-life decision-making can have an enormous impact on the everyday lives of unvoiced citizens. I believe that this part is actually a giant allegory to what is occurring in today’s politics (and indeed many reviewers believe that this is the case). It could be the creator’s intent to inform the audience that in the world outside our comfort zone, real people have real lives and worry about real issues. Institutionalized racism is indeed an enormous problem facing the United States, and it is epitomized in the show when a character declared that proliferating affordable housing means that “they” will inevitably bring the negative aspects of inner-city life, including drugs, crime, and thuggery.

That last interaction was a particularly powerful reflection of us as everyday constituents. It was the culmination of all the hatred and creed that all citizens of a representative democracy harbor. This was the moment that many voters crave: a one-on-one interaction with the big guy himself. Yet, it is most certain that our conversations will play out almost word-for-word like the scene displayed. I won’t say anymore than that; you very well must watch it play out yourself. Oscar Isaac really nails the part of the distraught Wasicsko, and I can see that this series will take political storytelling to a innovative, exciting, and more realistic level.

A brilliant start to a brilliant series. 9/10.

Timbuktu (2014) Review

A minimalist film about a minimalist country in a country that is fairly unheard of in the Western world (at least in the good ole’ ‘Murica), Timbuktu explores daily life in the titular city, occupied under the regime of what appears to be ISIL – the notorious black flags are flown around throughout the film. A quick Wikipedia search reveals that the city was administered by Ansar Dine, but that’s a tale for another time.

The premise of the film is very interesting. There are no primary protagonists to note, but we are presented with stories from multiple characters on all sides. The film attempts to focus on the very normalistic lifestyles in a minimalist fashion. Classic cinematography of the arid desert coincide beautifully with the mundane tasks of goat herding and hair brushing. Use of color and lighting are kept commonplace; there are no fancy colors playing around nor any brilliant lighting that showcase important aspects of the film – just brazen sun in a desolate place. Once in a while, the looming danger of extremist Sharia interpretation gnaws its gentle yet sharp jaws on the innocently ignorant community.

But here’s the beautiful part. Islamist rule in the film isn’t portrayed as a fully brutal and primitive way of life. If anything, Islam seems to be very well integrated as a cultural sustenance in the Timbuktu society, through the guide and wisdom of the local mullah. This integral topic is what separates the everyday Islamic way of life from the brutal aspects of extremist interpretation conducted by the ISIL leaders. Even among the ISIL group, there seems to be various accounts of dissent and disagreement that attempts at humanizing those who are, in fact, humans after all. But of course, brutal aspects are a part of what extremist Sharia implementation inevitably delivers. Forced women concealment, lashes, and stoning are all aspects explored in this film.

Personally, the appeal came mostly from the minimalist approach and the phenomenal acting that cast members delivered. However, there are times when for the lack of a better description, the film drags on in its lack of story and character depth. We often have glimpses at the individuals’ true inner characterizations, but it seems that this film lacks in classic film tropes of character arc and development. All those who we observe unfortunately do not change much near the end. The wise mullah is still the wise mullah, and the doubtful ISIL fighter remains a doubtful ISIL fighter. Perhaps this is meant to interplay with the minimalist approach of the presentation, but I for certain couldn’t help shedding a yawn here and there.

Moreover, there isn’t a real story in the strictest sense of the word. Again, it may be part of the director’s overall theme of minimalism in Timbuktu, but there really isn’t something worth listening in to. Perhaps a cow’s death would be a meaningful anecdote for you animal rights activists, which I absolutely don’t condemn. But once again, I couldn’t help checking my watch from time to time.

I have read some very positive reviews about the film, calling it “poetic” and containing a “powerful message.” While I am certainly not a professional film critic by general standards, I couldn’t help disagreeing with what these guys are saying. The film to me was more presentation than narrative. If it carried any political message behind it, it was probably the fact that Islam is not an inherently bestial and dangerous religion (which we all know), and ISIL members aren’t complete pariahs by our standards.

Overall, I give it a 6/10.