By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“The Counterfeiters” is a moral dilemma. This Austrian film, winner of Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, asks: At what point is it wrong to save one’s own life? When all available options have severe moral consequences, how does one weigh the choices at hand?
“The Counterfeiters” (“Die Fälscher”) is the story of Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics), a Russian Jew living in Germany in the late 1930s, who made a fortune by becoming the best counterfeiter of documents and currency in the world. But when Sorowitsch is caught and arrested for this crime, he is sent to a Nazi concentration camp where he is left to fight for his life.
However, Sorowitsch’s artistic skills ensure his survival, and he finds himself being favored by SS leaders within the camps he and his less fortunate comrades inhabit. Sorowitsch manages to sell himself as a useful commodity, and his interaction with Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow) lands him in a relatively comfortable and secure job within a camp. The only problem is that the job requires him to forge the British pound and the American dollar in an attempt to undermine the economies of the Nazi opposition. Sorowitsch is no longer simply asked to go along with relatively innocuous Nazi projects, but instead, is ordered to knowingly sabotage the Allied war effort, thus indirectly leading to the continued suffering and death of the Jewish people.
Sorowitsch accepts the Faustian bargain, explaining to one questioning compatriot that “One adapts, or dies!” Adapts, but adapts at what price? As the story develops, Sorowitsch becomes more and more aware of the consequences of his decisions, while at the same time realizing that the results of any alternative are equally tragic.
Sorowitsch’s character is foiled by Adolf Burger (August Diehl), a young and brash prisoner who actively and openly sabotages the counterfeiting team’s efforts to make the dollar. As the story plays out, all the men involved struggle with the instinctive desire to stay alive, but become more and more aware of the potential implications of their work. Although they are all in it together, some wish to favor their own fortunes and some the fortune of their ideals, but Sorowitsch, the leader of the group, is clearly torn. He attempts to strike some middle ground, but finds himself incapable.
Something hollow ensues. Mirroring the words of Soren Kierkegaard, who once said, “Do it or do not do it—you will regret both,” the ideals of both Sorowitsch and his friends are not practicable in a world where no good result is possible.
The story told in “The Counterfeiters” is intrinsically interesting for the complexity of the moral questions it raises. As the box offices continue to be populated by concentration camp movies, “The Counterfeiters” will stick out because in this story, the victims are asked to take part in the crime—not just to turn a blind eye to the crime, but to actually participate in it. The movie is well acted, well directed, well written and suspenseful enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat.
“The Counterfeiters” is rated R for some strong violence, brief sexuality/nudity and language.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
"Stop-Loss"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Aimless, reckless, hopeless; a testosterone-driven rebellion; brash, illogical chaos—like a teenage boy navigating his way through awkward adolescence, “Stop-Loss” trips, stumbles and overstates itself for a sometimes moving but mostly perplexing and exasperating two hours. In the end, what you have is an unfortunate cross between “Cruel Intentions” and “Saving Private Ryan.”
Having faithfully fulfilled their contracts amidst brutal battles and terrifying ambushes, a group of enthusiastic and patriotic Texan-American soldiers in Iraq are sent home battle-worn and relieved to end their tour of duty. After a weekend of partying, drinking and fighting, the leader of the pack, Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), learns that he is being stop-lossed: by executive order, he is being sent back to Iraq for another tour of duty. King argues with his commander over this decision, suggesting that although stop-lossing is legal during time of war, the president had declared the Iraq War a victory, and thus, stop-losses are illegal.
Predictably, the heartless commander would not have it. Instead of facing another tour of duty, King goes AWOL, pinning his hopes on talking to a Senator who promised to help him if he ever needed anything. While King is on the run, his friends and fellow soldiers, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are falling apart mentally, emotionally and physically. Severe post-traumatic stress syndrome sets in for all of them, causing hallucinations, binge drinking and physical violence. Burgess quickly obtains two DUIs and Shriver digs trenches in his front yard with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other.
As the well-being of the group unravels further, Shriver pleas with King, who is making his way to the Canadian border, to turn himself in and help out his struggling comrades. King is torn between loyalty to his brothers-in-arms and what he thinks is right.
The weight of the topic and the power of the opening scenes set this movie up to be thought-provoking and convicting, but as soon as the young soldiers come home, this movie falls to pieces. Moral sympathy for the protagonists quickly fades, as it appears these combat vets have pre-existing dispositions towards reckless and immoral behavior, almost as if that is just the way things are done in Texas. They instantly become drunk, get in fist fights, drive drunk and crash into light poles, all with the approving grins of their parents and loved ones. This is all cast as harmless fun in this MTV production, with the only serious moral issue being the semantics of war.
The best way to think about this movie is to envision a ticked-off high school male, who is always angry and never in control of his emotions, has a tendency to overstate himself with abundant drama, and rarely supplements these attitudes with clarity or logic.
“Stop-loss” is politically charged, with the stated purpose being to portray the injustice of stop-lossing soldiers. But because this common practice is legal in time of war, unless audiences fail to make the distinction between the politics of the current war and long-standing military practices, the ethics of stop-lossing will remain murky at best. Furthermore, the film deals more with the psychological trauma that inflicts veterans after being exposed to war, as well as the legitimacy of the Iraq War, which are only tangentially related to the topic in the title of this movie. A straightforward discussion of the merits of stop-lossing might have been valuable, but this movie has an awkward message: war is ugly, particularly this one, and because this war is ugly, we should talk about common military practices that result in multiple tours of duty instead of criticizing the legitimacy of the first tour.
The acting was adolescent, the screenplay was adolescent, the attitudes were adolescent and the material was adult. Unless you are a teenager apt to be angry at anything, avoid “Stop-Loss.”
“Stop-Loss” is rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language.
Coastal View News
Aimless, reckless, hopeless; a testosterone-driven rebellion; brash, illogical chaos—like a teenage boy navigating his way through awkward adolescence, “Stop-Loss” trips, stumbles and overstates itself for a sometimes moving but mostly perplexing and exasperating two hours. In the end, what you have is an unfortunate cross between “Cruel Intentions” and “Saving Private Ryan.”
Having faithfully fulfilled their contracts amidst brutal battles and terrifying ambushes, a group of enthusiastic and patriotic Texan-American soldiers in Iraq are sent home battle-worn and relieved to end their tour of duty. After a weekend of partying, drinking and fighting, the leader of the pack, Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), learns that he is being stop-lossed: by executive order, he is being sent back to Iraq for another tour of duty. King argues with his commander over this decision, suggesting that although stop-lossing is legal during time of war, the president had declared the Iraq War a victory, and thus, stop-losses are illegal.
Predictably, the heartless commander would not have it. Instead of facing another tour of duty, King goes AWOL, pinning his hopes on talking to a Senator who promised to help him if he ever needed anything. While King is on the run, his friends and fellow soldiers, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are falling apart mentally, emotionally and physically. Severe post-traumatic stress syndrome sets in for all of them, causing hallucinations, binge drinking and physical violence. Burgess quickly obtains two DUIs and Shriver digs trenches in his front yard with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other.
As the well-being of the group unravels further, Shriver pleas with King, who is making his way to the Canadian border, to turn himself in and help out his struggling comrades. King is torn between loyalty to his brothers-in-arms and what he thinks is right.
The weight of the topic and the power of the opening scenes set this movie up to be thought-provoking and convicting, but as soon as the young soldiers come home, this movie falls to pieces. Moral sympathy for the protagonists quickly fades, as it appears these combat vets have pre-existing dispositions towards reckless and immoral behavior, almost as if that is just the way things are done in Texas. They instantly become drunk, get in fist fights, drive drunk and crash into light poles, all with the approving grins of their parents and loved ones. This is all cast as harmless fun in this MTV production, with the only serious moral issue being the semantics of war.
The best way to think about this movie is to envision a ticked-off high school male, who is always angry and never in control of his emotions, has a tendency to overstate himself with abundant drama, and rarely supplements these attitudes with clarity or logic.
“Stop-loss” is politically charged, with the stated purpose being to portray the injustice of stop-lossing soldiers. But because this common practice is legal in time of war, unless audiences fail to make the distinction between the politics of the current war and long-standing military practices, the ethics of stop-lossing will remain murky at best. Furthermore, the film deals more with the psychological trauma that inflicts veterans after being exposed to war, as well as the legitimacy of the Iraq War, which are only tangentially related to the topic in the title of this movie. A straightforward discussion of the merits of stop-lossing might have been valuable, but this movie has an awkward message: war is ugly, particularly this one, and because this war is ugly, we should talk about common military practices that result in multiple tours of duty instead of criticizing the legitimacy of the first tour.
The acting was adolescent, the screenplay was adolescent, the attitudes were adolescent and the material was adult. Unless you are a teenager apt to be angry at anything, avoid “Stop-Loss.”
“Stop-Loss” is rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)