Personally, I feel that neither of these things particularly matter, but the film should be challenging and slightly slow-burning; while at the same time it should consider the psychological and political notions of what the war means to those directly affected by and around the actions that take place. War is devastating. War is a horrific ordeal whereby people are killed for the sake of something that they don’t entirely understand. War is confusing. Very few war films have this perspective and Valkyrie not is among the elite few. This is not to say that Valkyrie ignores all the basic principles and opinions of a mainstream war film. Sure, it says that war is bad and Nazism was crumbling beneath its own feet. Although, for the mainstream audience member, this has not been said enough and will never become tiresome. I don’t mean to cause any friction between myself and the average audience member, by this, but rather that I feel the mainstream war film itself will never grow old and it will never cease its already bourgeois perspective on the nature of war.
By its very principles, genre has to develop. Steve Neale taught us that. The only problem with Hollywood and their view on genre is that it doesn’t have to, as long as it’s bringing home eight or nine figure profit margin then who really cares. However, the point is that Neale is right and genre does have to develop, or you run the risk of it becoming stagnant and boring. Valkyrie is one that hasn’t done so and essentially it’s quite a run-of-the-mill film. However (and without contradicting myself) this is not my general opinion of the film. There are sections that are interesting and well made, there are sections that are thought provoking and there are sections that make it stand out from other films like it.
I did enjoy the way it had been constructed, the lighting and balance of light and dark was superb and the way in which the camera reacted to it, was on a par with Scorcese or De Palma on a good day. The camera movements were fluid and worked with a sense or eeriness, giving the film a genuine tension and stylistic edge, without becoming too flamboyant. I’ve always admired this about Bryan Singer and I genuinely believe that he is one of the most accomplished directors working in Hollywood today. Although you may not agree with that opinion, you have to admit that when he’s in the driving seat, he certainly knows what he’s doing. Certainly the most enjoyable part of the film, and certainly the most well directed scene of the film, was the attempted assassination scene. This scene carried itself with such grace, poise and genuine tension, that D.W. Griffith and Alfred Hitchcock would have been envious.
My only major criticism of the film was that it was in the English language. I can’t help pontificating myself by saying that if you’re going to make a film about Germans, with a German perspective of a German army, which shows the downfall of a German political party, then make the film in the German language. What confused me more was that the film’s opening voice-over began in German and mid-sentence flowed straight into English. I have such admiration and such respect for actors and actresses that learn dialogue in another language (I know they’re actors and that’s part of their job) but to learn a language with difficult pronunciation, such as German, is indisputably something that deserves applause.
The fact remains though, that this is a mainstream American film, and if you subtitle a film and advertise it as so, then people will not go and sit and “read” a film for two hours. Although Valkyrie is a genuine attempt to push a boundary and to make a mark, it still has too many problems with it. As soon as filmmakers lean to try and cut the ties to Hollywood and grow to not care what people think, then perhaps the genre and the cinema itself can grow.
2 comments:
That thing with the German at the beginning was the most pointless and shameless device I have seen in the cinema in a while. Why bother at all? I don't give a shit that Tom Cruise put in so much effort to learn two sentences in German. Tom and his cheesy face can fuck off.
I think Tom Cruise tried to make his von Stauffenberg the German wartime Ethan Hunt. He was just his useless quivery-faced self, although some of the other actors were passable.
I also hated the sentimentality of it in parts. Does his wife really have to stroke her tummy to tell us all she's pregnant? I think not. Just say "I'm pregnant Tom" for God's sake.
I think you can forgive the film for being this way though for the most part, because if you go to see a Hollywood film, that's what you get.
Aside from the whole German language thing, my only other major problem with the film was that like all other Hollywood films based on historical events, it totally twists how events happened to suit its own purpose.
Von Stauffenberg could be considered a hero for attempting to kill Hitler, but bearing in mind he supported such ideas as keeping Poles as slaves his motivations in real life were somewhat different to how they are portrayed in the film. Had Stauffenberg and co succeeded, who knows how the war would have turned out. Stauffenberg wanted to kill Hitler for reasons very different to those shown in the film, and the sentimental empathy towards Stauffenberg and other members of the resistance in Valkyrie is a little misguided in my opinion.
All I'm saying is that Singer should have had the balls to perhaps give a harsher critique of what Stauffenberg was really like.
Post a Comment