(no subject)
i went to a preview screening of Good, which was followed by a q&a with three of the actors. the film is very thought provoking, with excellent acting by Viggo Mortensen and especially by Jason Isaacs and, imho, well worth seeing.
i found that the film was well-done, nicely shot and credible. i'd been curious about whether they'd be able to portray convincingly one man's transition from being indifferent to the Nazis and not wishing to associate with them, to someone who joins the SS, of all things; i did feel that they pulled it off very well, a rather smooth change initiated by a mixture of intimidation, misunderstanding, flattery and lack of spine. the perfidy is that Halder doesn't even seem to realise what he's doing until he is in too deep, and then he keeps deluding himself massively until it is too late.
the q&a part of the screening was really interesting. Viggo Mortensen has a very even way of speaking, he seems to consider carefully what he wants to say and and mumbles a bit. that was set off very well by Jason Isaacs being extremely lively and not mincing his words in the least.
Jason said that what the director and all of them had tried to achieve was a film without the benefit of hindsight. and i think they did manage that, everyone is proud of Halder and what he does and all the characters are striving to do the right thing, to be good. with hindsight we of course know that they took all the wrong decisions, that Halder's caving in is horrendous and that terrible things happened.
in order to prepare, Jason said he read a lot of diaries, first-person accounts, etc., but stayed away from history books about the period. this was to avoid the point of view of hindsight and judgement which we naturally have today.
all of the actors agreed that they didn't know what they would have done if they had lived back then; they said that they hoped that they would have done the right thing, but that it was impossible to be sure.
there were screenings of Good in Hungary (where the film was shot) and Viggo said that this question was not one that had come up in the q&as in the former eastern block, because people knew what they would have done, i.e. nothing. he continued that anyone there in about their mid-thirties or older remembered what it was like to live under a totalitarian regime and to be unable to do much about it. it crushed people morally, but they felt that non-compliance was not an option, even if they didn't agree.
and i guess he's right. it was a long time from the brutal suppression of the Prague Spring to 1989, and then change became possible due to a thawing at the top of the political structure, which helped activists at the grass-root level.
there's an open end to the film, and deliberately so. as Viggo and Jason stressed, the viewer should be drawn in, and provoked to think about the film, the motivations of the characters and their own actions and attitutdes. a closed ending, especially something heroic as one might have expected, would have let the audience off the hook, it would have provided closure in a way that neither director, nor cast wanted and i think it works.
i liked the film, certainly enjoyed ("enjoyed"?) it much more than Appaloosa. it's also a perceptive study of human emotion: vanity, frustration, ambition, stubbornness, cowardliness, desperation, self-delusion, denial and regret. and Viggo exhibits some hilarious body language as the bumbling, middle-aged academic.
it's out in the UK on 17 april. if you get to see it, i'd be interested in opinions.
i found that the film was well-done, nicely shot and credible. i'd been curious about whether they'd be able to portray convincingly one man's transition from being indifferent to the Nazis and not wishing to associate with them, to someone who joins the SS, of all things; i did feel that they pulled it off very well, a rather smooth change initiated by a mixture of intimidation, misunderstanding, flattery and lack of spine. the perfidy is that Halder doesn't even seem to realise what he's doing until he is in too deep, and then he keeps deluding himself massively until it is too late.
the q&a part of the screening was really interesting. Viggo Mortensen has a very even way of speaking, he seems to consider carefully what he wants to say and and mumbles a bit. that was set off very well by Jason Isaacs being extremely lively and not mincing his words in the least.
Jason said that what the director and all of them had tried to achieve was a film without the benefit of hindsight. and i think they did manage that, everyone is proud of Halder and what he does and all the characters are striving to do the right thing, to be good. with hindsight we of course know that they took all the wrong decisions, that Halder's caving in is horrendous and that terrible things happened.
in order to prepare, Jason said he read a lot of diaries, first-person accounts, etc., but stayed away from history books about the period. this was to avoid the point of view of hindsight and judgement which we naturally have today.
all of the actors agreed that they didn't know what they would have done if they had lived back then; they said that they hoped that they would have done the right thing, but that it was impossible to be sure.
there were screenings of Good in Hungary (where the film was shot) and Viggo said that this question was not one that had come up in the q&as in the former eastern block, because people knew what they would have done, i.e. nothing. he continued that anyone there in about their mid-thirties or older remembered what it was like to live under a totalitarian regime and to be unable to do much about it. it crushed people morally, but they felt that non-compliance was not an option, even if they didn't agree.
and i guess he's right. it was a long time from the brutal suppression of the Prague Spring to 1989, and then change became possible due to a thawing at the top of the political structure, which helped activists at the grass-root level.
there's an open end to the film, and deliberately so. as Viggo and Jason stressed, the viewer should be drawn in, and provoked to think about the film, the motivations of the characters and their own actions and attitutdes. a closed ending, especially something heroic as one might have expected, would have let the audience off the hook, it would have provided closure in a way that neither director, nor cast wanted and i think it works.
i liked the film, certainly enjoyed ("enjoyed"?) it much more than Appaloosa. it's also a perceptive study of human emotion: vanity, frustration, ambition, stubbornness, cowardliness, desperation, self-delusion, denial and regret. and Viggo exhibits some hilarious body language as the bumbling, middle-aged academic.
it's out in the UK on 17 april. if you get to see it, i'd be interested in opinions.