Civil War [dir. Alex Garland]

55 years ago Haskell Wexler, known primarily as a cinematographer (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, In the Heat of the Night, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest), made a film called Medium Cool. Wexler's film was an auteur-driven enterprise, written, photographed edited, co-produced and directed by him. In it, a young Robert Forster (Jackie Brown) played a Chicago TV news cameraman dispassionately capturing sensationalist stories with his 16 mm in the period leading up to the rioting at the Democratic National Convention. While not a period of actual civil war, there was a strong element of unrest among the American people on account of opposition to the Vietnam War and the assassination of Equal Rights activist Martin Luther King. With its nouvelle vague inspired freewheeling journey, Medium Cool captured the zeitgeist of that period in a manner few films have. As critic Vincent Canby says in his review, it portrays "...a picture of America in the process of exploding into fragmented bits of hostility, suspicion, fear and violence."

Alex Garland's Civil War is set in an even more chaotic dystopian near-future, with the White House a fortress occupied by a Fascist dictator and the country torn apart by violent secession. Veteran combat photojournalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and her comrade Joel (Elite Squad and Narcos fame Wagner Moura) plan to travel from Brooklyn to DC to interview the president. Tagging along is their mentor Sammy (Stephen Henderson). Sammy has played the game a long time, but now he's "too old and fat to run", even to save his life. They have another fellow traveler in Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) a wet-behind-the-ears novice lugging around her father's film camera. Having seen her lose it at a riot event they previously met at, Lee is reluctant to take the girl on board, but Sammy and Joel convince her.

In their road journey to the capital, the group see violence in multiple forms, including armed assault, cruel vigilantism and even mass civilian murder by militia groups. Garland dishes out some mordant humor: The once-almighty US dollar is shown to be hugely devalued ($300 can only buy a ham / cheese sandwich). In a shootout between two bands of snipers, one of the men mockingly answers Joel's question about which faction they are fighting with "The guys trying to shoot us".

While Garland originated as a writer, the most gripping parts of Civil War are the visuals (DoP Rob Hardy, who handled cinematography for Garland's previous features Ex Machina, Annihilation and Men). The scenes of rioting and armed conflict are captured with veritable intensity. Garland also uses the  full height of the IMAX screen, especially noticeable in the scenes where helicopters glide over troubled vistas or during the large scale climactic battle in the capital. The format also gives tremendous depth of field and a 'window effect' into the happenings on screen.

The visuals are sadly undercut by the predictability of the narrative. Where Medium Cool or Oliver Stone's Salvador (also about an American journalist caught in a civil war) echoed the chaos and desperation of unrest and gave it a personal edge, Civil War mostly follows a conventional coming of age drama - Lee is the aging camera-slinger that takes a maternal interest in Jessie (even Joel who is said to be hitting on her never crosses any line) and the youngster in the course of her adventures wises up to emulate her idol (this is contrasted with Lee suddenly losing her nerve during the final conflict). A certain "circle of life" metaphor hinted at early in the narrative is given a groaning realization in the climax.

Don't get me wrong here, Civil War is admirable for its technical audacity - Garland achieves the kind of spectacle that would normally require 2 or 3 times the budget, and he does not trivialize his material with fake heroism. The actors are fine too, adjusting to the physical and emotional needs of their characters. But the rote writing reduces the film's power as a statement on the brutality of civil war.

P.S. If you are seeing the film, make sure to catch it on the largest screen format.

Memories of Underdevelopment [Dir. Tomás Gutiérrez Alea]

I'm not generally interested in political films for their politics alone. I appreciate when they are part of another genre (like with the thriller overtones in  John Frankenheimer's The Manchurian Candidate or contain a more personal viewpoint like with Adoor Gopalakrishnan's Mukhamukham aka Face to Face). I was primarily interested in Memories of Underdevelopment (MoD) because the stated premise "A Cuban man cycles through his repressed opinions and memories as the threat of foreign invasion intensifies and the rest of his family retreats to Miami" suggested an individual perspective, one that possibly gives an insight into what was happening with the common man in Cuba in the volatile period between the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

My expectation wasn't directly addressed because the protagonist of MoD, Sergio (Sergio Corrieri) is far from the average  Cuban. He is an intellectual and a man of comfortable means. When the film begins, Sergio sees off his parents and wife at the airport where they are fleeing towards the United States. Our man has decided to stay back in Havana, because he feels that while he knows his future in the US, it is a time of unknown fate in Cuba and therefore more interesting to him.

The rest of the film sees Sergio carry on his existence (he gets a comfortable living off the rent from his family properties and does not have to earn a living, which puts him at a massive distance from the average citizen). We are privy to his monologues in which he often makes radical criticisms of the post-revolution scenario (He refers to Havana a cardboard cutout city). Middle-aged Sergio is also a hedonist who lives by his fancies. He fantasizes about sleeping with his Catholic housemaid, and has multiple trysts with much younger women.

Sergio's behavior with women appears caddish, even cruel. He pokes fun at his neurotic wife before she leaves him for America. He prefers to break off an entanglement with another woman he claims to truly love, because it would involve moving to the US, and he prefers to stay back with the family business. His most prominent affair in the film is with Elena (Daisy Granados), a 17-year old ingenue he shamelessly pursues, and after she gives herself up, tires of her lack of sophistication and dumps her (The film might be hinting at seeing this as a reflection of the treatment of the Cuban people post-revolution).

All of Sergio's decisions appear to stem from a self-centered comfort zone, his interest in people's movements in politics or literature only the hobby of a dilettante. I personally felt his decision to remain in Cuba comes from a feeling of knowing his position there, unlike the US where he will be a nobody that has to take employment and work his way up the system. While not a villain, Sergio is hard to sympathize with, even when we see the screws being slowly tightened around his like.

Apparently Corriera, who was committed to the cause of the Cuban revolution, hated the character of Sergio. That said, he portrays him brilliantly, carrying the casual charm and self-deprecation of a Marcello Mastroanni. Strong credit is also due Granados, who very convincingly passes for the not-yet adult Elena when she was actually 25 at the time, only 3 years younger than Corriera.

MoD's strongest point is in its brilliant execution, which is never less than worthy of admiration. Inspired by the French New Wave, director Tomás Gutiérrez aka Titón and editor Nelson Rodríguez deftly present a mixture of narrative and archival / documentary footage, often building up a scene as a collage of contrasting images. There are even some clever fourth wall addressing in-jokes with appearances by the director and the writer (Edmundo Desnoes) in wholly appropriate contexts. While I did feel removed from its protagonist, MoD is still recommended for an imaginatively conceived and skillfully executed construction that stands with the best of its ilk.

The Confession [dir. Costa-Gavras]

From the director of the political thriller Z (which was also adapted in 2012 by Indian film-maker Dibakar Banerjee as Shanghai), The Confession is another film which looks at corruption endemic to power. It is based on the book written by Czech communist politician Arthur London. Played by French movie star Yves Montand, the film looks at how London, appointed as a deputy minister of foreign affairs just 2 years prior, is suddenly brought in for questioning about his past dealings and accused of being a traitor to the ideals of the ruling communist party. The interrogation, dealt with in great detail, is really more a process of extended torture. Made to keep walking inside his cell, barely allowed to sleep or eat, an increasingly disoriented London is alternately yelled at or coaxed by his tormentors to confess to deliberate treason against the state. Initially London denies the charges vehemently, confident that his basic innocence and his political connections will soon lead to his release. But they are relentless, breaking down his emotional defences, chopping up his testimony to individual sentences and then rearranging them to suit their purposes. London and several of his colleagues are put up for what is called a show trial, one where the guilt of the accused has already been decided and the court proceedings are merely to make a strong example of them. As part of the notorious Stalinist purges, of the 14 people accused at this trial, 11 were executed and 3 - including London - sentenced for life. He was released 2 years after Stalin's demise.

Inherent to the nature of the film, there is a lot of repetition: we see day after day London undergoes repeated cycles of torture. He is held for months without official charges under emergency law where his persecutors have extraordinary powers. When London's wife (Simone Signoret) protests about her husband's abduction in the ministry, their house is seized and she has to take employment in a factory. By the time they have compelled him to sign on practically fabricated confession he has been reduced to a pale thin shadow of his former self (Montand lost 23 pounds over the course of shooting). Then in the period towards the trial they reverse the process, feeding and medically administering to him ("preparing the goose" London remarks), even using a lamp to give him an artificial tan, masking his continuous isolation. The film is powered by Montand's performance, but it's a performance wholly in service to the strong statement the director wants to make.

Gavras sometimes uses a non-linear style going back and forth in London's life. It is suggested that some of the trials he presided over may have obtained confessions of guilt using the same methods he is now subject to. Regardless of ideology, the people in power are invariably corrupt and hostile paranoia increases the more one climbs the ladder of political rule.

Dekh Tamasha Dekh [dir. Feroz Abbas Khan]

Dekh Tamasha Dekh by Feroz Abbas Khan (who previously made Gandhi, My Father) was an interesting if schizophrenic experience. The title and poster, which promise a rib-tickling farce, are misleading. Set in a small seaside town with Hindu and Muslim communities that periodically flare up at each other, the film deals with communal unrest, religious appeasement, suppression of intellectual and artistic freedom by the so-called guardians of culture and the profit-minded businessmen, taboo of inter-religious romance etc. While the film does take on a fair bit more than it can chew, it shows some absorbing straight drama, especially when it depicts the frustration of rational and civil minds against the monster of aggressive fundamentalism and cultural appropriation. In these scenes there is a simple direct approach that lends the story significant strength.

On the other hand DTD has a big problem with consistency of tone. It's almost as if at some point they decided that the script should have satire and absurd humor, and be a form of Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron 2 (the opening scene features one of the most gratuitous and irritating uses of abusive language and sexual innuendo in the name of earthy humor). Sadly these elements don't work and jar with the straight material. When a hearing impaired historian pulls off his hearing aid to ignore the rhetoric of a fundamentalist ranting against his book, it's amusing and effective, but when that same act leads to his being unaware of his assistant being hacked to death outside his very door, it is reduced to a plot contrivance. Most of the cast is new to me, but they fit their roles nicely. There is some nice layering to the characters, like the passionate newspaper editor that's not above stealing credit for another man's idea, while the normally callous marketing guy is the one that balks at running a story based on inflammatory rumor. Satish Kaushik can be an excellent actor, but his character is reduced to a buffoon in a needless farce, (and his face on the poster is due to his relative name value than the amount of footage he gets in the film). The cinematography (Hemant Chaturvedi)  and editing (Sreekar Prasad) are generally effective - the scene of the procession march towards the end is shot and cut in a manner that brilliantly amps the tension - but will occasionally become flashy in a distracting way. The end seems tame compared to the build-up, as though the film was in a hurry to reach closure. But this is still, with some caveats, an effective diatribe on the danger of losing our freedoms to the cancer of religion and social factionalism.

Eros' DVD gives a good video presentation of the film (digitally shot, I assume from the look), and audio is pretty good as well. No extras, although the DVD case holds an free disc of another movie - Son of Sardar. It's like they were so worried about people straining their brains watching this movie, that they provide you with a massive dose of stupidity to bring you back to the comfort of Bolly-Zombie land.