Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
The Kingdom : One step forward
For those expecting a clear indepth understanding by Hollywood of the complexity of terrorism by making a movie that views it inside out and outside in… grab your popcorn and walk out. For those moderates who have resigned themselves that Hollywood should change it’s name to Money&Wood cause of the pinheaded intelligence it shows us every Friday with marked precision, there may be something to rejoice.
The Kingdom directed by Peter Berg and screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan (who’s also written the soon to release Lions for Lambs), is first and foremost a thriller, that rides on the current wave of newspaper headlines, issues and most of what that hogs the tube on your telly. The second layer beneath though as feeble as it may be to hard core purists, does not fail to surprise. The other side of terrorism. The regions where it grows like a never ending weed, through the roads and streets, homes and stores, work and leisure… through the common threaded life of the common man who’s simple dreams still lie in having a relaxed evening with the family and playing with his children.
And that’s what Colonel Al Gazi and Segeant Haytham do. Lead simple lives. Do their jobs and go home. The difference is they work in Saudi Arabia, the place which gave us atleast 15 of the 9/11 terrorists.
The Kingdom has patches of brilliance. The way it opens up to show the history of Saudi Arabia is absolutely essential and now becomes an integral part of the film. Of course from some point of you it is a quick history lesson to many of the shockingly ignorant about world history and politics in the West. Job well done. But rather than move deeper, kind of the “Syriana” way (which to clarify was not according to me as great as it has been made out to be by friends and family)… The Kingdom gets trapped in the typical Hollywood cliches… such as -
The opening sequence where two scenes run in parallel. The bad guys about to strike in Saudi while the good guys are having a oh cho chweet time at their children’s school appearing as a guest teacher. That they are the FBI or CIA or such, is only a matter of time before their regular day job is revealed to us. By Jove we didn’t know that!
Berg periodically falls into such cliched moments, and miraculously replaces such duds with sharp edgy scenes that have dialogues that hit you right in the middle of the eye… like the one where Colonel Gazi looks at FBI team lead Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) to point blank point his ignorace at Gazi’s own personal tragedy “You lost two men, I lost 77″. Or where the investigations get resolved like “that” - snap of a finger, the blue marble investigation is mind boggling (in a really bad way), but as oft happens in the movie it is countered by many sharp scenes which look hard at the West’s own beliefs that they refuse to see - the brilliantly done accusation scene where the American oil worker having lost his wife keeps pointing fingers at Gazi as if all Middle Easterners are villains, just shows how brilliantly in just a few minutes the writer has presented a lot of the Western psyche towards terrorism and the people who come from those regions where it predominantly originates in their view.
This isn’t a movie that should be brushed aside as another flick that titillates (which it does) and races ahead (which it does) going on mindlessly (it doesn’t!)
The human factor from both the sides is brought forward, the scenes of Gazi and Haytham’s time with their families is giving a surprisingly sensitive look and time. While the nourishing terrorism acts in the hearts of innocent kids is passed on in a blink and you miss speed. Yet, there are moments which again to Berg’s credit are different and create the necessary eye opening impact… like the way he closes the movie… the same sentence is spoken on the two sides… when Foxx tells Jason Bateman what he whispered to Garner in the ear and at the other end in Saudi Arabia the innocent kid who tells his mom what his grandfather told him… same words, different impacts. That was one of those smashing moments in the movie.
Before closing up, a special mention needs to be made to the 30 minute or so climax which is just airtight and hardly allows you any breathing space. It brings back memories of the way some of the best action sequences in war scenes has been handled by the ever so efficient at this - Hollywood. I was consistently trying to compare the grip of the climax to “Black Hawk Down” which in my books has one of the most gripping sequences where it placed you the viewer right in the center of the battle. Berg in The Kingdom does the same.
The cast from the American side do their stuff without any problems Foxx, Garner, Bateman and Chris Cooper. But it’s the angst, struggle and frustrations of Gazi and Haytham played by Ashraf Barhoum and Ali Suliman, that have surprisingly been captured quite well and the characters would have been slaughtered had not Barhoum and Suliman given it that right touch, the importantly required held back balance.
Inspite of its many faults, I have to hand it to Berg to taking that important step forward towards telling such stories relevant in the our world… the world of today and the critical look at the failure to even attempt to understand and tackle terrorism on many platforms and not just via the gun. The end brings out the truth of it all… every lost terrorist makes way for a new one.
The audience was silent, uneasy and unlike the usual special screenings where there is a thumping sound of claps as the end credits roll out, the predominantly white audience was left with some glaring truths, a few baring facts and slap in the face look at their society reflecting in the mirror. Besides me and two others everyone walked out silently… you knew why… the uncomfortable truth that there is no easy solution to terrorism was just told in about two hours… the hero doesn’t ride into the sunset in this one.
B Plus. The Kingdom may not have made any earth shattering moves, but by Hollywood standards, it’s a step forward, in the right direction.
14 Responses to “The Kingdom : One step forward”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Scattered Thoughts
- The Legend Of Johnny Depp
- Chalti ka Naam Gaadi : Fun unlimited
- Kishore Kumar, Unravelled.
- Confessions of a Movie Maniac
- Confessions of a Movie M
- 3 films, 3 characters, 3 actresses : 3
- Marathi me kehte hain ki… SH
- Hello, Review: “Bhagwan Ke Liye Mujhe Chhod Do&#x
- Reasons- Why I liked Satya
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
I’m waiting for this film quite eagerly.
I would recommend everyone who has an iota of interest in the things happening in IRAQ to read the book
IMPERIAL LIFE IN EMERALD CITY: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.
http://tinyurl.com/34d8fj
PAUL GREENGRASS who made the amazing UNITED 93 & the last 2 Bourne films is gonna direct a film based on that book after the elections next year. I am eagerly waiting for that film.
OZ & t! if you guys loved Kingdom so much & are interested in what is happening there I recommend the Documentary NO END IN SIGHT playing in theaters right now.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/
I’m gonna watch it tommorow afternoon.
*********
Last Film - The Perfect Storm (5/10) Some the worst dialogues in films ever!
Good post. But rather hopeful in its outlook.
We need to trace the history of terrorism on the American popular film. Historically, the terrorist film has provided the basis to uphold the myth of America and what it provides to its citizens (who have to embrace and identify with its way of life). This axiom is central to all violent films that are popular and commercially successful.
Such films reflect a nation’s psychology — refusal to acknowledge consequences of its actions. And such refusal can only come from a position of power.
Hollywood and terrorism can be traced back to the war (Hitchcock
Mainak: Greengrass’ film adopts an interesting take on the heroic struggle of the “American” against a group of savage/irrational terrorists — the passengers in the flight are turned into hero/martyrs who save the Whitehouse (ergo America). It is interesting that there is no way anybody would know what happened in the plane — except for the phone calls made by those inside to their friends/relatives. This thereby defines what constitutes in the public memory as “appropriate” response to an evil enemy.
Kishore
When I’m talking about the film UNITED 93, I’m talking purely about the filmmaking style of Greengrass. Actually I don’t even believe what was shown in the film. Thats why i refused to watch it for almost 2 years. But when I did I was mighty impressd by Greengrass. I believe United 93 was shot down by Air Force.
Mainak: I am sure you will agree with my position that in the the context of the political film (which these are) content takes precedence over style. Yes, the filmmaker may employ certain techniques in the “elements of film” (cinematography, editing, mise-en-scene, screenwriting etc), which may offer tips/lessons to the budding filmmaker (or in the Mumbai industry case the inspired filmmaker!). In my humble opinion, critique of certain films — by the very nature of their content — should be centered on what is most important. The filmmaker should not escape from one’s ethical/philosophical responsibility. By the overt use of style (as a distraction), the filmmaker makes the core issue a sideshow.
Talking about craft, it is interesting how filmmakers and critics praise Black Hawk Down. This to me demonstrates the supremacy of the entertainment/industry principle over self-reflexivity.
Completely lacking subtlety, the cinematic virtue of “Black Hawk Down” is in its mindlessly violent, technologically enhanced depictions of gratuitous destruction and murder. The minimal plot of the film together with the visual excess which places the audience bang in the middle of the unfolding narrative leaves them with only one choice — whose side are you on? I would like to argue that the film though a good case for craft represents the problematic of the craft. I.e., how craft converts problematic issues into pleasure.
Thinly rationalizing this hatred and bloodshed is Scott
The 45-degree shutter gave Black Hawk Down its crisp yet staccato scenes of violence.
In the context of what I have said earlier, I would also like to admit that there is no “right” way to read a film. But certain readings (for example craft) should not be at the expense of reflexive readings.
oz: would like to know what you found lacking in Syriana?
Kishore
Black Hawk Dawn is a very well made hollywood film with a great shot of the Helicopter falling down. Thats all. The script and everything else was pure hollywood mumbo-jumbo. I completely agree with your opinion about it.
Syriana was a boring film. They couldn’t even get the Indian guy to speak hindi properly. He had a fuckin British accent.
Mainak: Good observation. I thought the Indian guy in Syriana was meant to be a Pakistani, or was it an Indian? Will have to dig up the DVD.
He was supposed to be a pakistani guy working in an oil field. But the accent was typically pakistani accent..may be one of the dialects in pakistan. The movie was slow paced but grips on slowly.
Indian, Pakistani…whatever…he spoke very bad hindi… I can’t tolerate that in a movie starring George Clooney & when the writer got a record amount to write whatever the hell he wanted to.
british accent mainak??!!!!!!
I meant a actor from UK who learnt his hindi for that role. The point is his hindi was smooth like any pakistani guy from pakistan. It was more like a Pakistani/Indian guy who was born & raised in UK.
I’m surprised no one here felt that. Most of my desi friends here felt the same thing.