A Fine Moment from Our Finest Hour

Forever The Moment

Alternative Titles: Our Finest Hour, Uri Saengae Choego-ui Sungan

Year: 2008

Country: South Korea

Runtime: 2 hr and 4 min approx.

‘Forever the Moment’ (also known as ‘Our Finest Hour’) from South Korea, is a partially true (some events and characters are fictional) story of the events surrounding the South Korean women’s handball team and its journey to reach the finals of the 2004 Athens Olympics.

Like most movies made out of sport, this too, follows the worn down line of showing the team’s genesis, individual struggles of some players (and how they eventually overcome it), how they find motivation in the darkest of hours, and eventually triumph (?).

Spoilers Follow – The movie’s climax has been revealed.

If you followed the Athens Olympics, you’d know that Korea lost a close encounter in the finals to Denmark. In the movie, this match comes down to the line, with a penalty shootout determining the fate of the two teams involved. In a make or die situation, Mi-Sook, arguably the protagonist of the story, misses her shot, and Korea has to settle for the silver.

You’ve seen various winning and losing moments in a sport film. But I’m sure you haven’t seen a brilliant take like this. Instead of showing her penalty and the works (the goalie, the shot etc), all we see is Mi-Sook and the people behind her. We DO NOT see the goalie and the goal. And 2 seconds after the ball leaves her hand, the result is obvious. We DON’T see her missing the shot. From the same camera angle, we see Mi-Sook’s shoulder drooping, her face losing all the energy and her legs giving away, her eyes not wanting to believe what just happened, her team-mates aghast, disappointed and the Denmark bench in raptures, predictably ecstatic. The shot becomes even more pronounced considering the fact that every other shot of the penalty shootout is shown in its entirety.

Sport movies often tend to hype the final play, the grand finale, and prolong it to an extent where it becomes unbearable. For someone who’s seen movies like this that tend to make a grand show of ‘THE MOMENT’, it was refreshing to see such innovative screenplay. The guts to not show the moment, the audacity to not tell the viewer directly that the shot was a miss… it was wonderful if you ask me.

M - ... Wow!

M

Year: 1931.

Country: Germany.

Principal Cast: Peter Lorre, Otto Wernicke, Gustaf Grundgens and others.

Directed by: Fritz Lang.

Runtime: 1 hour 50 minutes approx.

Fritz Lang’s classic psychological thriller.

Have I ever told you that I’m a sucker for serial killer movies? I haven’t? Well now you know.

Infact, I’ve even grown to classify them into a few types.

For me, a good serial killer movie is an engrossing tale about a person committing crimes in quick (not necessarily so) succession. It is often a story about who the killer turns out to be, and how they (the police, private investigators and you know, the works) catch him. Some movies choose to reveal the killer’s identity eventually, while others continue the suspense and mystery with an open ending which leaves us with no clear ideas whatsoever on the killer.

A great serial killer flick has all this, while subtly trying to tackle some other issue of relevance. The best example I can provide at the moment is ‘Memories of Murder’ where apart from the usual serial killer escapades we were subject to dark humour predominantly circulating around the then police practices and the methods they used to ‘catch’ a culprit. Such a movie keeps you engrossed, but makes you think even after its runtime. Not necessarily about the killer alone, but that subtle message that it wanted to air.

‘M’ is without doubt, a great serial killer movie.

The movie begins with a take of a few children playing around singing ‘Just you wait a little while, the nasty man in black will come. With his little chopper, he will chop you up!’. A wonderful way to introduce the plot, if you ask me. Children are rapidly disappearing in a German city and chaos ensues in an attempt to nab the child murderer. As expected the police are pressured in a big way and the whole force is galvanized into finding this one man who is responsible for the death of 5 children. As you might expect, the rest of the rest of the movie focuses on how the cops eventually find the culprit.

Whoa, hold it. I did tell you this was a great movie, right?

This is where ‘M’ throws an interesting plot twist at you. Indirect consequences of the urgency to arrest the child murderer include maximum security, unprecedented police raids and the like… all of which disrupt the hitherto smooth activities of the criminal underworld. In what I can only describe as a masterstroke, the crime lords conspire to work together to catch the murderer. The rest as they say is a movie well worth your time.

Much of that credit goes to the cast and the writer-director team of Thea van Harbou and Fritz Lang. Peter Lorre as Hans Beckert is perhaps the first (?) and most definitive portrayals of a serial killer. A character that must have set a precedent, for we often see serial killers in the same shade. Beckert is perfection. A guy who is as normal as they come, whose killer instincts and motives are best described by the movie as being triggered by an ‘instantaneous impulse’. There are other clearly discernable characters such as Franz, Lohmann and Schranker but I’ll stop here. Suffice to say that ‘M’ is so filled with characters that you’re bound to like. Elsie’s mother, the blind beggar, the guy who trails Beckert, the old guy who’s mistaken for the murderer… there are many more! Harbou and Lang must have spent quite some time developing the populace, and they seem too have done an excellent job of it.

The usual characterization and plot apart, there are several little things I love about this movie. Some scenes, a few portrayals and the dark typically noir-esque ambience it successfully creates. In doing so, ‘M’ carves a niche for itself.

For example, take the scene where we first meet the killer face to face. His introduction is synchronized with a graphologist’s description. (“The very particular shape of the letters indicates in this man a very strong and pathological sexuality. Some of the broken letters reveal an actor’s personality which can be indolent or even lazy.”). Telling us in the clearest of ways, how aptly the character can be described. Or the scene where the distraught mom shouts her daughter’s name. ‘Elsie!’, we hear the name three times, each time the frame shifts to a new location… locations that were perhaps frequented by the girl, poignantly signifying that something is amiss. And to confirm our worst premonitions in the most wonderful way, we see her toy, a ball, rolling out of a few bushes and her balloon stuck on electricity wires. ‘M’ takes its sweet time to develop its plot, but it marvels in sequences like this. Sequences that speak volumes without actually saying much.

Infact, one of the best things about the cinematography, in my opinion, were the sudden muted sequences that the screenplay was brilliantly interspersed with. Introduced a few times, they are perfect examples as to how cinema can show so much without actually saying anything. I also loved the way the camera, in a few instances focused on WHAT was being said, rather than WHO said it (For example, the scene where Lohmann recounts the damage to the office). That aside, the lighting was perfect in nearly every scene making you believe that this is every inch a dark thriller.

And to cap it all, the final scene in the dilapidated refinery where the ‘criminals’ decide to ‘judge’ the killer. Pure genius. I can’t begin to say what I liked more. There is the inherent irony of criminals trying to pass judgment on a criminal so that they can peacefully resume their criminal activities. There is the attempt to make it as legal as possible, with even a defense council (yes of course, he’s a criminal too) and the like. And finally there is the way the killer justifies his insatiable craze. Lorre’s must surely be one of the best portrayals I’ve seen. Irrespective of how he was throughout the movie, his acting in those 10 minutes really made me take pity on him. Yes, that good.

And finally there’s this inescapable fact that the movie works splendidly as a drama too and not just some serial killer fare. The way in which the murders have unexpected repercussions on the crime world is fascinating. Another instance of fabulous writing is the place where criminals seek the help of the beggar’s union to help them nab the killer. It might sound incredulous, but it was so well done to the point that it seemed very believable. Ultimately, ‘M’ transcends from being just another serial killer film to a classic drama cum film noir feature woven around a German city.

‘M’ is cinematic brilliance at its very best. What’re you waiting for?

Cidade de Deus - Brutal... and Effective

CIDADE DE DEUS

Year: 2002.

Country: Brazil.

Alternative Title: City of God.

Director: Fernando Meirelles, co-directed by Katia Lund.

If you run it will get you. If you stay it will eat you.

Introduction

A Brazilian favela (slum settlement) was not a happy place to live in. It was impoverishment personified and was a picture of violence and chaos. Drugs, rackets, mobs, gang wars and the like were the order of the day. And the fact that it housed an eclectic collection of people didn’t help. Numerous favelas were found clustered in and around Rio De Janiero. And it is in one such favela that our story begins.

(The movie is a recount of events that transpired in the ‘City of God’ during the 60s and 70s. It is an adaptation of Paulo Lins’ novel of the same name. Lins was an actual resident of the favela in question.)

Story

‘Cidade de Deus’ is a foray into life in a typical favela. It commences with an amateurish trio stealing from more affluent sources, proceeds to depict a little tyke’s metamorphosis into a notorious gang leader and culminates in a fierce gang war. The movie can be considered a biographical presentation of Lil’ Ze’s life, his rise to fame as an ruthless gangster and his disputes with rival gang lords like Carrot, and Knockout Ned. Interlaced at critical junctures, are shorter stories that play significant roles in contributing to the overall story.

The narrative is set to the voice of Rocket, who despite hailing from the favela, chose to tread on the rarely walked path of non-violence. Within minutes of its commencement, the movie shifts into flashback mode, as it describes the elements and events that have made the favela what it is today. The movie is divided into a number of shorter sub-segments, each with a seemingly trivial name. However, and to the director’s credit, these segments are sequenced quite effectively.

Characterization

To suggest that the film abounds in characters would be an understatement. Characters come and go in a flash, and they are interwoven so intricately around the story that sometimes the viewer is left wondering who’s who. The movie literally teems with characters who are introduced concurrently. Thankfully, most of them are pretty well defined and such strong characterization is one of the film’s fortes.

It would be really futile to attempt to describe ALL the artists who performed in the movie. Leandro Firmino as Lil’ Ze looks every inch a gangster. As a tyrannical leader, Firmino does tend to overact at some instances but for the most part of the movie, he skillfully portrays a man with unmatched arrogance and desire for power. Alexandre Rodriguez as Rocket has no solid role except for that of the narrator and is comprehensively overshadowed by Lil’ Ze and the others. But with what little scope the character offers, Rodriguez churns out a convincing performance. Other notable characters include Carrot (Matheus Nachtergaele) and Knockout Ned (Seu Jorge).
Perhaps the greatest character is the capricious city itself. On some occasions it is festive, and during others, it is a warpath, with casualties reaching all time highs and bodies strewn on every street. Ironically, the city is so alive when wars occur and deaths are frequent. Even more ironical is the fact that the place is named ‘City of God’… would God want to live here?

Screenplay, Cinematography and Background Score

The powerful storyline is accompanied by equally riveting screenplay and cinematography. The dialogues are kept simple but they have a resounding effect on the viewer. The tangential takes and flashback may seem a bit confounding, but they complement each other aptly. The camera seems to be handled consummately, in all scenes, without any discrimination. The accompanying music is pretty alluring and it perfectly matches the mood the movie takes at any given moment. The background score at Benny’s farewell merits special mention.

Personal Opinion/Discussion (Heavy Spoilers)

I liked the movie predominantly for a single reason. It was honest, brutally so. I expected a toned down version of events that transpired in the favela. What I did see, was an in-your-face presentation that is as close as one can get to the real thing.

The movie also portrays the contrasting nature of 2 people who were bought up in the favela at nearly the same time. While Rocket chose the path of non-violence, Lil’ Ze became an infamous gang lord, being the power hungry maniac that he was. To a good extent, the movie also shows gangsters who’d like to shed their violent ways and start afresh. Shaggy and Benny do it for the women they love, while Clipper does it of his own accord (guilt?). Love, lust, power, vengeance, angst… the movie is a skillful combination of these. And more.

Anarchy apart, the movie also had its share of comical moments and subtle humour. Rocket’s attempts to woo Angelica, his confusion when Lil’ Ze’s gang urges him to take more photos of them instead of killing him for publicizing their name, are a few instances. Also funny, to an extent, are the names the characters were given. Rocket, Carrot, Lil’ Dice, Stringy, Goose, Blacky, Shorty and more. The opening sequence is very suggestive too. A chicken that decides that it doesn’t want to die by the knife, is chased by scores of gangsters. Literally, it is hilarious! Metaphorically, this can represent the fact that the City of God provides no alternate choices. And yes, they get you. And contradicting that fact, we have our narrator Rocket, who chose to follow his lifetime ambition of photography and comes out unscathed.

‘I smoke, I snort coke and I have killed. Therefore I am a man.’

Another jarring aspect of the movie was the way it portrayed kids. During the gang wars, everyone who’s someone wants a gun. You see kids handling guns for superficial reasons like ‘he punched me in the face’. And the most poignant moment came at the climax, where the so called runts are shown carrying munitions, making a black list (consisting of enemies, including the Red Brigade). Just when you thought everything was going to be just fine, the movie ends on a pessimistic note. It begets a question: Will life at the favela ever improve? With the fall of one gang, rises another. And another. A vicious cycle.

Conclusion

Two minutes into the movie, this reviewer was sold. A must watch.