Blood Diamond

[Akash]

It's different, flipp. North Country was a dreadful movie, ineptly done, an embarassment for all concerned, but it probably was honest in his treatment of the problem of sexual harassment - it was just poorly made. I think Blood Diamond is more expertly done (at least technically - the script is a mess) but its use of a real issue, the way it treats it as an easy excuse for very superficial thrills and action scenes, with all the bad guys vs good guys cliches, and never once attempting to go to the roots of the problem - but still showing it off as a "proof" of its good intentions (as if dealing with such subjects gave a movie the right to critical appraisal), are simply cynical and immoral. Thi

This is very, VERY true. Sabin and Italiano are correct (and good distinctions between those two films, Marco!). They're both lousy films but at least North Country isn't really offensive (except perhaps to good taste).

Blood Diamond is the worst kind of "issues" film. A bleeding heart liberal film that actually limits and essentializes the characters it pretends to care for. I have no doubt that Zwick meant well but honestly, it's not social progress when you move from treating ethnically marginalzied subjects as "noble savages" to treating them as catalysts for the enlightenment of white people (and for the audience, presumably white middle class people).

All of this atrocity basically exists so that white people can have a chance of heart onscreen and pat themselves on the back offscreen without seriously challenging anything. I think Slant Magazine got it right when they said the whole thing occurs so Leo DiCaprio's character could score with Jennifer Connelly. Which, ok I admit scoring with Jennifer Connelly is quite a feat, and hey I'd love to arm wrestle Paul Bettany for her - but it's hardly forward thinking.

[Mister Tee]

Just to show miracles happen, I completely agree with Italiano on this. North Country was, in my estimation, a far lousier movie than Blood Dimaond, but it was more honestly devoted to its issue.

[ITALIANO]

It's different, flipp. North Country was a dreadful movie, ineptly done, an embarassment for all concerned, but it probably was honest in its treatment of the problem of sexual harassment - it was just poorly made. I think Blood Diamond is more expertly done (at least technically - the script is a mess) but its use of a real issue, the way it treats it as an easy excuse for very superficial thrills and action scenes, with all the bad guys vs good guys cliches, and never once attempting to go to the roots of the problem - but still showing it off as a "proof" of its good intentions (as if dealing with such subjects gave a movie the right to critical appraisal), are simply cynical and immoral. If you have an important subject in your hands, you must treat in a profound way, you must do it justice, otherwise you are just trying to profit from it. (With good results, at least in this case, it seems, judging from the five nominations and the good reviews).

As I was watching it I was reminded of some terrible Italian movies of the 60s and 70s, things like "Africa Addio", which were very successful back then - pseudodocumentaries about Africa which were actually collections of extremely violent (and often faked) situations, for the thrill of Western audiences. Violence and fakeness (emotional fakeness) abound in Blood Diamond, too.

[Sabin]

In case Italiano doesn't, I'll chime in that 'Blood Diamond' absolutely does. I haven't seen 'North Country' so I guess I can't entirely answer your question, but that's exactly what I said about 'Blood Diamond' after I left it. My buddy and I were astonished at how simplistic a really horrifying situation was made out to be.

[flipp525]

in Blood Diamond plot, situations and characters are so banal that they reduce the important social issue to a McGuffin - and, I'm afraid, intentionally so.

Just curious, did you feel that North Country reduced the plight of sexual harrassment in the workplace to a McGuffin? I'm of the opinion that it didn't. The story was relatively fact-based, and there wasn't some relationship/love story or overriding "B" plotline taking the focus away from the film. I think the only major thing that was altered was the actual time period (they changed the story to the late 80's instead of depicting it in the early 80's). Or someone else can answer me, since ITALIANO "doesn't usually reply" to my posts.



Edited By flipp525 on 1170082666

[ITALIANO]

What I found especially insulting is the way a real and tragic problem is cynically used as an excuse for a simplistic, sensationalistic action movie - I wasn't a big fan of The Constant Gardener, but at least you could see that there was a honest commitment to the subject there - in Blood Diamond plot, situations and characters are so banal that they reduce the important social issue to a McGuffin - and, I'm afraid, intentionally so. I wonder how the Academy could have gone for Di Caprio in this one instead of The Departed - it certainly isn't a good sign for Scorsese's film.

[Sabin]

Yeah, it's pretty repugnant, simplistic stuff. Warner Bros. really dropped the ball by not pushing this one back to April, where it would look a lot better, maybe get misinterpreted as a great film...like 'Crash'.

Instead, they ended up playing double-dutch with 'The Departed' in most of the main categories. To wit: were 'Blood Diamond' not in the race, 'The Departed' would likely pick up nominations for DiCaprio in the Best Actor race, Nicholson in the Supporting Actor race, and maybe a Sound Mixing nomination, and potentially lead in nominations over 'Babel'. I have no idea how 'Blood Diamond' is on any degree a Best Sound Effects nominee over something like 'Cars'; Lord knows, that film has to be a stronger example of manufactured sound designing.

[ITALIANO]

Saw this one today. Ok, I have to admit now that Dreamgirls isn't the worst among the movies which got major Oscar nominations.

[Mister Tee]

Call me paranoid, but I don't think you can ignore Hounsou as a supporting actor contender. As many have said, it's a lead (given that the film begins and ends with him, he's almost THE lead); he's got all kinds of emotional breakdown moments; he's been around ten years, and has been previously nominated; and his movie got five nominations. If he wins, I want credit for spotting it first.

Meh, I'll give you credit for calling it second. I called it on Oscar nomination morning.

My apologies, Eric. I obviously missed it in the miasma of nominations morning. You get first dibs, then.

[Eric]

Call me paranoid, but I don't think you can ignore Hounsou as a supporting actor contender. As many have said, it's a lead (given that the film begins and ends with him, he's almost THE lead); he's got all kinds of emotional breakdown moments; he's been around ten years, and has been previously nominated; and his movie got five nominations. If he wins, I want credit for spotting it first.

Meh, I'll give you credit for calling it second. I called it on Oscar nomination morning.

[dylanfan23]

Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. I enjoyed it for the most part but i can understand a lot of the complaints. The script is probably the biggest downfall, i agree. But the direction of zwick was really sharp and made the most of it. When he revs things up its for the best and it helps the film along i think. Also i loved the performances. Dicaprio really did a fine job here and it was somewhere i think most people thought he would fall on his face and he didn't....the character is very fun to watch and he makes it easy to understand everywhere he's coming from. Hounsou is a huge talent and he soaks it up here. And connelly does a fine job with what she's givin. But overall i was entertained, i thought i was easy to put the flaws aside and enjoy it for what it was...and the performances and the direction made that possible.

[Mister Tee]

All right, the big nominations got me in to see the damnable thing. Sonic is correct, it's the script that sabotages it -- it's got at least one or two plots too many (which makes it run unconscionably long), and it offers precisely the kind of theme-articulating-dialogue that was so refreshingly absent from Children of Men. It also keeps trying to have its cake and eat it -- giving us a "cynical" hero but having him go soft (and win the heart of the idealistic girl); letting Hounsou get all the money from the diamond but still somehow be noble because he exposes the greed merchants in the bargain. You just know Zwick thinks he's making something tough and trenchant; he isn't even aware how much Hollywood BS is in his bones. He does, as usual, rev things up for an occasional violent actions cene, but other his directing is indifferent when it's not silly (as in the rebels-with-the-kids scenes, which could be labelled Satan Camp).

I can sort of see why DiCaprio got the nomination here rather than in Departed -- he seems more fully a grown-up here (partly because his Departed role has youth built into it); it's a full-sized leading man role; he does an accent (fairly well); and he does play a different character than we've seen from him before.

Connelly continues her Year of Thankless Parts, though she does have some good moments, mixed in with the clunkiest of the dialogue ("You'll see it on CNN between the weather and sports"). Nicest touch: the way her blouse always had one button opened past propriety.

Call me paranoid, but I don't think you can ignore Hounsou as a supporting actor contender. As many have said, it's a lead (given that the film begins and ends with him, he's almost THE lead); he's got all kinds of emotional breakdown moments; he's been around ten years, and has been previously nominated; and his movie got five nominations. If he wins, I want credit for spotting it first.

Oh, yeah, stupidest moment: four tanks roll by in pitch dark, and Hounsou has no trouble picking out his son. Utterly believable.

[Sabin]

sue-lue-MAHN!

[Franz Ferdinand]

I'll agree that the screenplay was ham-fisted (to put it lightly), but I thought DiCaprio's performance was great. I never found his accent off-putting, and at times he seemed to transcend his well-known name and face: I did not think he was ever not believable as a diamond smuggler who has a change of heart. Not the best movie I've seen, but Leo deserves the accolades he's getting for this performance. I would not begrudge a double nomination for him this year.

[criddic3]

Well that's what opinions are for. Two people can watch a movie and see them in completely different ways.