The Constant Gardner
Filmmakers today don't seem to understand that there is a difference between a film and a documentary, and the psuedo-documentary style of Shaky Cam direction does not enhance, but detracts from the story. This is one of the drawbacks of The Constant Gardner, based on the John Le Carre novel of the same name.
This is one of those arty British films which tells a story in a series of scenes that are short bursts, and not in and of themselves impressive. In as much as is possible, film scenes should stand alone, not depend on the other scenes for their impact, which is also a drawback of the flashback technique, with its convoluted chronology, a technqiue in which this film indulges, without catastrophe, but also without effect.
Since it is based on a novel, the producers have had to compress which is undoubtedly a more intricate story into about two hours. The film would have benefited, I think, from about another hour of running time, and yet, on the other hand, the framing and editing of the scenes makes the film run a bit slow.
However, the message of the film, about how pharmaceutical companies act like a Mafia- with the protection of the goverment- makes it worthy to be seen, but it too bad that the message wasn't given a crisper presentation.
Of course, this is a British film. It does have a realistic feel to it. The bad guys are not grandiose, and passionately committed to a scheme, but casually evil, cold, dull, calculating for profit.
If this were an American film, a lot more things would get blown up, and the bad guys would get blown away at the end, maybe by Steven Seagal. I would have maybe preferred that more emotionally satisfactory ending, but I do respect the filmmakers for not descending into that mentality. As it is, the ending is moving, and there is (some) recompense for the villains, but it is without bloodshed by the protagonists, in keeping with their respect for human life.
Ladies in Lavender
After watching The Constant Gardner, I saw Ladies in Lavender, with Judi Dench and Maggie Smith as two old women in pre-WWII Cornwall, who rescue a shipwrecked Polish youngster, who has a gift for playing the violin. Dench in particular develops an affection for the young man, who reminds her of her late husband, and both women go to shield him from the interest of an Olga Danilof, whose brother is a famous violinist, because they are lonely and don't really want him to leave.
The film was a bit tedious for my tastes, but there is a difference between judging on taste and judging on merit, and I can't find anything especially wrong with any of the elements, that is, anything that ought to have been done differently.
There was an extraordinary parallel, however, between the ending of the story, and the ending of Jet Li's most recent film, Unleashed.
In case you think The Constant Gardner was an Exaggeration...
http://www.afbis.com/analysis/crisis.htm
Why not simply privatise whole African countries?, asked Robert Wheelen of theInstitute of Economic Affairs. In the journal of the institute in September 1996 Wheelen argued that multi-national companies should be invited to bid for the right to run African nations under leases of up to 21 years. They would undertake to provide specific services and bring about efficiency and discipline in return for pre-set tax revenue.
http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000343.html
Last August, Paul Martin was named co-chair of the Global Compact, a major initiative that is supposedly designed to “advance responsible corporate citizenship” so that the “private sector…can help realize the Secretary-General’s vision [of] a more sustainable and inclusive globaleconomy.”
Members of the Global Compact include what corporate watchdog CorpWatch refers to as “notorious violators of UN values.” Infamous companies such as Nike,Unilever, and biotech giant Aventis have violated one or more of the Principles of the Compact since they signed on. Other corporations have milked their new relationship for promotional purposes, using the imagery of the United Nationsto improve their reputations and hawk their products. One DaimlerChryslerpublication featured the Global Compact logo, an “editorial” by the UN Secretary-General, and a photo of a smiling Daimler executive shaking hands with an equally enthusiastic Kofi Annan.
One of the contradictions of the Compact, according to CorpWatch, is that it allows companies to “bluewash” their sullied images and reputations, “without committing to scrutiny, transparency or concrete changes.” Indeed, this secretive organization – the UN refuses to name the companies involved with the project – has no intentions to monitor or enforce the principles of thecompact. Despite the idealist rhetoric, the UN has yet to prove how forming unequal partnerships with known human rights violators and perpetrators of ecocide can contribute to sustainable human development.This misleading legacy now includes the latest step in the corporatization ofthe UN, the Commission on the Private Sector and Development that Paul Martin chairs. In a recent report the Commission states that private sector growth is held back by “disabling business environments” and that governments must “avoid actions that impede” the private sector.
This is one of those arty British films which tells a story in a series of scenes that are short bursts, and not in and of themselves impressive. In as much as is possible, film scenes should stand alone, not depend on the other scenes for their impact, which is also a drawback of the flashback technique, with its convoluted chronology, a technqiue in which this film indulges, without catastrophe, but also without effect.
Since it is based on a novel, the producers have had to compress which is undoubtedly a more intricate story into about two hours. The film would have benefited, I think, from about another hour of running time, and yet, on the other hand, the framing and editing of the scenes makes the film run a bit slow.
However, the message of the film, about how pharmaceutical companies act like a Mafia- with the protection of the goverment- makes it worthy to be seen, but it too bad that the message wasn't given a crisper presentation.
Of course, this is a British film. It does have a realistic feel to it. The bad guys are not grandiose, and passionately committed to a scheme, but casually evil, cold, dull, calculating for profit.
If this were an American film, a lot more things would get blown up, and the bad guys would get blown away at the end, maybe by Steven Seagal. I would have maybe preferred that more emotionally satisfactory ending, but I do respect the filmmakers for not descending into that mentality. As it is, the ending is moving, and there is (some) recompense for the villains, but it is without bloodshed by the protagonists, in keeping with their respect for human life.
Ladies in Lavender
After watching The Constant Gardner, I saw Ladies in Lavender, with Judi Dench and Maggie Smith as two old women in pre-WWII Cornwall, who rescue a shipwrecked Polish youngster, who has a gift for playing the violin. Dench in particular develops an affection for the young man, who reminds her of her late husband, and both women go to shield him from the interest of an Olga Danilof, whose brother is a famous violinist, because they are lonely and don't really want him to leave.
The film was a bit tedious for my tastes, but there is a difference between judging on taste and judging on merit, and I can't find anything especially wrong with any of the elements, that is, anything that ought to have been done differently.
There was an extraordinary parallel, however, between the ending of the story, and the ending of Jet Li's most recent film, Unleashed.
In case you think The Constant Gardner was an Exaggeration...
http://www.afbis.com/analysis/crisis.htm
Why not simply privatise whole African countries?, asked Robert Wheelen of theInstitute of Economic Affairs. In the journal of the institute in September 1996 Wheelen argued that multi-national companies should be invited to bid for the right to run African nations under leases of up to 21 years. They would undertake to provide specific services and bring about efficiency and discipline in return for pre-set tax revenue.
http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000343.html
Last August, Paul Martin was named co-chair of the Global Compact, a major initiative that is supposedly designed to “advance responsible corporate citizenship” so that the “private sector…can help realize the Secretary-General’s vision [of] a more sustainable and inclusive globaleconomy.”
Members of the Global Compact include what corporate watchdog CorpWatch refers to as “notorious violators of UN values.” Infamous companies such as Nike,Unilever, and biotech giant Aventis have violated one or more of the Principles of the Compact since they signed on. Other corporations have milked their new relationship for promotional purposes, using the imagery of the United Nationsto improve their reputations and hawk their products. One DaimlerChryslerpublication featured the Global Compact logo, an “editorial” by the UN Secretary-General, and a photo of a smiling Daimler executive shaking hands with an equally enthusiastic Kofi Annan.
One of the contradictions of the Compact, according to CorpWatch, is that it allows companies to “bluewash” their sullied images and reputations, “without committing to scrutiny, transparency or concrete changes.” Indeed, this secretive organization – the UN refuses to name the companies involved with the project – has no intentions to monitor or enforce the principles of thecompact. Despite the idealist rhetoric, the UN has yet to prove how forming unequal partnerships with known human rights violators and perpetrators of ecocide can contribute to sustainable human development.This misleading legacy now includes the latest step in the corporatization ofthe UN, the Commission on the Private Sector and Development that Paul Martin chairs. In a recent report the Commission states that private sector growth is held back by “disabling business environments” and that governments must “avoid actions that impede” the private sector.
posted by Amateur Film Critic at 2:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home