popstress

by nomsa

I finally got to watch HBO's Game Change yesterday, the dramatization of John Heilemann's 2010 book. Julianne Moore plays Sarah Palin, the Vice Presidential nominee for John MacCain's 2008 campaign. While the book goes into both sides of the race the film focuses on the Republican side of the race.

The timing of its first airing (March 10, 2012) is impeccable, it resonates strongly with the current nomination campaign for the 2012 elections. The New Yorker in particular has been publishing a series of articles about the race in the last few months that all come down to one thing: the war within the GOP between moderates and fundamentalists. This battle has been brewing for a while and seems to be about to reach some kind of climax soon. No matter how you look at it, the Republicans in this country are going to have to face some changes, may they be demographic, procedural or ideological in nature. And per definition change is not exactly something conservatives embrace. 

Game Change in this context seems to look back at the 2008 campaign as an important marker or even turning point in this ongoing process. It is always easy too look back and assign meaning to past events and only time will tell whether and how Sarah Palin will be remembered. But I think it is fair to say that her popularity was a result of and helped further the case of the fundamentalist factions within the GOP. For a while Sarah Palin became the symbolic leader of the Tea Party movement, the right wing splinter group that rose to media fame in 2009.

The film starts off by explaining to us the rationale behind her nomination: she is conservative to McCain's relative liberalism, she is charismatic and she is a woman. Exactly what the McCain campaign needed to counter the Democratic nomination of a black man and a woman VP. No one knows Palin and the vetting process is rushed through in order to time her nomination to coincide with Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.

As McCain's campaign staff slowly begin to realize exactly how empty this vessel they have nominated is, we, the viewers of course already know - I found myself excitedly chortling in anticipation of a Palin gaffe several times. I went into the film expecting to mainly derive pleasure from making fun of her, maybe learning a few new things that would allow me to make fun of her (it has been too long... what's Sarah up to these days anyway?) And the first half of the film does not disappoint.

But there is a gradual shift in tone as the film progresses. At one point I found myself thinking: "But could I do it? Do I know the name of the President of Georgia? Could I debate Biden on TV?" Don't misunderstand me, I still think I probably know more about foreign policy than Sarah Palin. But weirdly the movie also reminded me of what is expected of a candidate and what a tough job it is. I felt sorry for Palin, who at one point just seems overwhelmed by the demands. When confronted with the limits of her intellectual capabilities she becomes obstinate and shuts down completely. This makes sense as a protective mechanism, shielding her ego (a politician's most valuable asset) from damage. Whether this particular part of the narrative is exaggerated or not, it makes for a compelling character portrayal. It allows us to sympathize with her and appreciate the pressure she was under.

In the last few scenes of the film Palin wants to give a concession speech after the lost election. It is the only moment where Schmidt loses his patience with her in the movie and I got as angry as he is in that scene:

But at the same time something about it rubs me the wrong way: the "tradition" argument is one of the oldest tricks on the box to keep women "in their place". Since when is tradition a reason not to do something? While I don't think the film means to imply any such intentions (and also tries to balance this by mentioning Obama's moment as the first black president), this combined with the way he puts her in her place kind of spoiled the moment for me. Now that she is not needed anymore as a figurehead for diversity the gloves come off and it is revealed how little say she actually has. Of course, in her case we are glad for it, but the nagging question is: had she been more competent, would she really have been allowed to have more power?

The scene also functions as a last jolt of horror, like the killer who was thought dead suddenly attacking from behind - "See what a stubborn idiot she is? Imagine she'd won!" BUT SHE IS STILL OUT THERE!

Beyond Palin Game Change treats its protagonists with kindness. McCain, played by Ed Harris, is portrayed as an honest man, who genuinely aspires to presidency to change things, rather than acquire power. By the end I felt sorry for him.

We see Schmidt slowly come to the realization that he made a huge mistake by pushing for Palin, and trying to save th campaign. He comes off as a good guy, who is genuinely concerned about the mess he has made not just for the McCain campaign, but also for the future of US politics. Interviews with him in the wake of the book and the film seem to confirm this notion.

Overall I found Game Change to be highly entertaining and insightful, watching recommended! I'm thinking about reading the book as well.

 

 

 

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Documentary

Meh.

That's all I could think while watching Hell and Back Again. I appreciate what they were trying to do, intercutting scenes from the front with scenes of Nathan at home, after getting shot. I found it interrupted the flow of the film and made it harder for me to follow and really get into it. I understand that this was probably meant to reflect how he is really always back there, in the war. But it doesn't work.

What I did find interesting is the difference in persona on the front and at home. Maybe it's the uniform, but I think it's also a certain kind of confidence he posesses in Afghanistan, that e seems to struggle to project at home. In the war he can do things, knows things, decides things. At home he is passive, he waits. 

I am guessing this is part of the whole being a soldier thing, validation. Nathan does not seem like a well educated guy. Seeing him in his environment at home he is nothing special. In the context of the war he is much more powerful. 

I don't know why the film makers chose this guy to tell their story, he is not very likeable or relatable to me. He wants to go back to the front because he "wants to kill people", which is also the reason why he joined the army in the first place. It's difficult for me to feel sorry for or even sympathize with him. I don't care what happens to him. To be honest, I am not sure why this film is nominated.

 

 

by nomsa

Every year legendary film critic Roger Ebert invites everyone to outguess him on the Oscars.  The first prize is "an all-expenses paid trip for two to Los Angeles to attend a Hollywood premiere." Unfortunately the contest is open only to people in the United States.

Nevertheless it might be fun to compete with the grandmaster, so Nike and I have added our guesses below:

 

Best Picture:

Nominees: The Artist, The Descendants, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life, War Horse

Ebert: The Artist

Nike: The Artist

Nomsa: 

will probably win: The Artist. There is so much buzz about this film, also I believe it's impossible to hate it

should win: The Tree of Life. To me this is clearly the best film of the bunch.

 

Best Leading Actor:

Nominees: Demián Bichir (A Better Life), George Clooney (The Descendants), Jean Dujardin (The Artist), Gary Oldman (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy), Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

Ebert: Jean Dujardin

Nike: George Clooney

Nomsa: Jean Dujardin

 

Best Actress:

Nominees: Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs), Viola Davis (The Help), Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady), Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

Ebert: Viola Davis 

Nike: Rooney Mara

Nomsa:

will win: Viola Davis - although I thought it was unlikely, having seen Streep's and Close's performances (which were great but the center of okay movies) now I think Davies might really happen. It saddens me that the film is so fucking craptastic, she did deliver a great performance

should win: Michelle Williams. I just like her, and she did do a great job.

 

Best Supporting Actor:

Nominees: Kenneth Branagh (My Week With Marilyn), Jonah Hill (Moneyball), Nick Nolte (Warrior), Christopher Plummer (Beginners), Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close)

Ebert: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)

Nike: Kenneth Branagh

Nomsa: Christopher Plummer. Didn't manage to see the film but it sounds like a great movie and a great performance by Plummer.

 

Best Supporting Actress:

Nominees: Bérénice Bejo (The Artist), Jessica Chastain (The Help), Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids), Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs), Octavia Spencer (The Help)

Ebert: Octavia Spencer 

Nike: Jessica Chastain (private second guess: Octavia Spencer)

Nomsa: 

will win: Jessica Chastain (to be fair, she was good in this film as well asTree of Life)

should win: Melissa McCarthy. Because she's awesome and because Bridesmaids really should get the recognition.

 

Best Director:

Nominees: Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist), Alexander Payne (The Descendants), Martin Scorsese (Hugo), Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris), Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life)

Ebert: Michel Hazanavicius 

Nike: Martin Scorcese

Nomsa: 

will win: Martin Scorcese they have to appreciate his Hollywood boner 

should win: Alexander Payne, The Descendants is such a great achievement in good, unpretentious directing. This price is about how well someone can direct a film, right? Compared to The Descendants all the other films seem like the annoying ramblings of old white men who are just too full of themselves, more about ego than cinema.

 

Best Animated Film:

Nominees: A Cat in Paris, Chico & Rita, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Rango

Ebert: Rango

Nike: A Cat in Paris

Nomsa: no idea - I hear good things about Rango

 

Best Foreign Film:

Nominees: Belgium, "Bullhead", Canada, "Monsieur Lazhar", Iran, "A Separation", Israel, "Footnote", Poland, "In Darkness"

Ebert: A Seperation

Nike: Footnote

Nomsa: A Seperation. Haven't seen it yet, but there can be no doubt, everyone loves this film and it has already generated so much buzz. Sure thing.

 

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Nominees: The Descendants, Hugo, the Ides of March, Moneyball, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Ebert: The Descendants

Nike: Moneyball (private second guess: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)

Nomsa:

will win: Moneyball

should win: The Descendants

 

Best Original Screenplay:

Nominees: The Artist, Bridesaids, Margin Call, Midnight in Paris, A Seperation

Ebert: Midnight in Paris

Nike: The Artist

Nomsa:

will win: Midnight in Paris

should win: Bridesmaids

 

Best Feature Documentary:

Nominees: Hell and Back Again, Pina, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, Undefeated 

Ebert: --

Nike: Pina

Nomsa:

will win: Paradise Lost 3, I think they'll want to acknowledge mainly what this film has achieved

should win: Undefeated, hands down

 

Happy watching!

 

 

 

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Picture and Best Director (Terrence Malick)

It's been a while since I saw The Tree of Life, I watched it during its original run in the theater. I have to admit I am a bit of a sucker for films that rely heavily on visuals to evoke emotions, a bit weird, a lot of instrumental music. One of my favorite movies (which also happens to sport a Tree of Life) is the sadly underrated The Fountain, by one of my all time favorite directors Darren Aronofsky. I haven't seen any of Terrence Malick's other films, so I wasn't really sure what to expect, but from all I'd heard it sounded like this could be a film I'd love.

And love it I did. Throughout the whole film I felt enveloped by the dense atmosphere and great images. This movie is just so fucking beautiful. 

I know there are a lot of people who hated this film, and I can understand why you would. It's one of those things where either you're on board or you're not. If you don't buy it from the beginning it's not going to do much for you. You have to be able to relax and go with it. I do see the flaws, the grandiose gesture of framing a life experience in the history of the world, the religious not-so-sub-text. The end. Even Sean Penn doesn't know what the hell he's doing in that movie. Nothing happens, there is no real plot.

I think these flaws are more than made up for by the sheer emotional impact the film has. This may sound trivial, but to me is actually one of the most difficult accomplishments in entertainment. To be clear, I am not talking about excitement, suspense, laughter, sadness... these are great and important emotions. What I mean is this feeling that you are right there with the characters, the director, the whole universe of that movie. You are not watching, you are experiencing the film. 

The performances by the actors are amazing, Hunter McCracken as Young Jack is great. This is the performance of 2011 that should have earned Brad Pitt an Oscar nomination (and win). 

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Leading Actress (Meryl Streep)

Is every Oscar nominated film this year a Weinstein production? It sure feels that way.

Anyway, The Iron Lady, a biopic, is the type of film an actress like Meryl Streep can sink her teeth into. She looks great as Margaret Thatcher and as far as I can tell also portrays her mannerisms quite well. Her performance is the only thing that holds this film together.

I can't say that I really dislike the movie, I just don't care about it and am a bit confused. The love story between M.T. and Dennis is sweet, but stunted and restricted to the first part of the film. We do see glimpses of a softer side to the lady, but they are tiny, just enough to not make her a total monster as far as personal side goes, politically there is no such mercy. 

Her story is told in a series of flashbacks that old Thatcher experiences after the death of her husband. Reality, memory and imagination become a blur for her and she fitfully relives the past events. I'm not sure the makers of this film did themselves a favor by choosing this format. Toward the second half it feels like you're on an amusement park ride, all the twists and turns are dutifully performed and ticked off: IRA bombings, check! Falkland War, check! Resignation, check! The hallucinated version of Dennis is her MC, commenting on memories and events and making them accessible for the viewer. That is how little even the movie itself seems to understand her, it has to try and explain her to us through dialogue.

But I still don't understand who Margaret Thatcher is any more than I did before. Isn't that the main objective of a biopic, giving us more or different insights into a person? The film remains distant from its subject at all times. Why is she so hard (is she really)? Is there another side to her? None of these questions are even addressed. Even the chauvinism she faced is addressed only in passing.

Toward the end of her political career the movie shows her as a crazy, power hungry, mean, micro-manager, an evil queen (note her Queen Elizabeth I. dress in a scene towards the end). How did she get there, how did she become this way? We never learn, not even a hint.

It's very much like this film isn't so sure about M.T. either. It seems to be saying "She was a bitch, but she probably has a nicer side too. I guess. Maybe." It doesn't want to come down on one side or the other, and it somehow doesn't even manage to just go the standard route of just saying she is flawed, but ultimately human. It can't quite get to the point of actually liking or even just empathizing with her. This is quite fascinating, what a despised woman she was and still is.

Ultimately The Iron Lady as a film is a failure. But it does make me hope someone will give it a try again.

 

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Michel Hazanavicius), Best Leading Actor (Jean Dujardin), Best Supporting Actress (Bérénice Bejo) amongst others

If you don't live under a rock you'll have heard it by now: The Artist is a very charming film. It is funny, sweet and affecting, without being cheesy. It looks and sounds (hehe) like an artfilm on paper, but it really is a romantic comedy. It's for everyone!

When I went and saw it last week it felt like the wave of enthusiasm had crested and that may explain why I was ready to not like the film. But even I was helpless before such an explosion of joy and sheer lovelyness. 

The beginning of the film was a bit confusing, it is really hard to tell what is the film and what is the film in the film, since both are black and white and silent. That got me thinking - what a weird idea to make a silent film about the silent film era. It's not like people couldn't speak or hear at the time. From today's perspective it seems so natural that film had to develop this way, becoming more similar to reality. Part of getting into the mindset of people at the time is this contrast between the movies and real life. This film gives up this dichotomy in favor of... what? What is the reason for this decision?

It screams Oscar nomination (the ever-present Weinsteins know how to spot a contender) and it's an interesting experiment. This is one of the very few, if not the only film that seems to take the side of the silent film.

Normally silent film is presented as a backward early stage of today's awesome productions. This film, through style more than through story, is saying that there is merit in the format. Its success proves that a black and white silent film can be just as effective as a digital FX dripping blockbuster. Film is about the stories that are told and the emotions that are evoked. Just as George Valentin is not obsolete because he is a an entertainer the story will always prevail.

This is the message of The Artist, and it gels well with its other story which is a pretty standard romance plot. Both aspects are pulled of with so much humor and enthusiasm that it is hard to not be won over. 

 

 

 

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Documentary

I know nothing, NOTHING, about Football. I don't even know the rules, not really. Also not a big fan of sports films. I did not expect to like or hate this movie, I went into it thinking at best I'd not be bored out of my mind. And even going to see it itself turned out to be a bit of a challenge - Undefeated only opened in NYC last week, as of now it is being shown in two cinemas. In the whole city. Of New York, USA. Not a grand opening for an Oscar nominated film. But I guess that's how it goes for documentaries, a sadly neglected genre.

I don't want to say to much about the story itself, except that the payoff towards the end of the film is great. There was more happy crying than ever before in this project, and it felt GOOD.

I am here to tell you: GO AND SEE THIS FILM IF YOU CAN. It is the best documentary I have seen in a while. It is well-made, touching, relevant. Yes, on the surface it's about a high school football team from a poor neighbourhood in Tennessee and their coach. But what makes this a great film is that it touches on the bigger, universal themes that all of us can relate to. It's about coach Bill Courtney, who has been training these kids in his free time for 6 years and really cares about them. It's about the three players who are the main focus, O.C., Chavis and Money, whose lives are touched by him. It's about not giving up. But to me it is also about the social inequalities in this country and the fact that being underprivileged doesn't just mean not having money, but also has a psychological cost.

Although the trainer is white and all the kids are black is not addressed in the film at all and I did not feel that it should have. I know there has been some criticism targeted at the film, comparing it to  The Blind Side, that horrible and by all accounts very condescending Sandra Bullock film about how a white lady single-handedly pulled a black kid out of poverty. It didn't feel like that was what the coach was thinking and doing, so why make it an issue?

Seriously, if I had to tell you one film from my Oscars list that you should see it would be this one. This is what it's about, what an unexpected and thoroughly satisfying treat.

 

by nike

Berlinale, category "Panorama Special"

"Cherry" is about a blonde, barely-legal girl from a dysfunctional family who enters the porn industry, apparently on her own volition. First she has some pictures taken, then she moves to San Francisco and works her way up or into (no pun intended) Internet porn. Her stage name lends itself to the title.

A film with such blatantly obvious cliché elements must subvert them - or so I thought, expecting some fiercely independent, maybe even experimental thing, a wild card, a fresh view on the industry - something. But no. Really really no.

Cherry's real name is Angelique (why a stage name, you might ask). Her "broken home" apparently did not harm her utter trust in people, the world in general or her self-confidence. An incest ploy is suggested at one point but left trickling off to nowhere. Despite having had an alcoholic mother for years, when Mum visits and tells her some  some lame story about her little sister being sick, she offers money, eyes wide. (Cherry: Do you need money? Mum, you have to tell me when you need money.) The sister is there, too, by the way, and apparently smarter than the big one, because she tells Cherry she's fine.

Okay, but these are just some of the clichés of the terrible, terrible script (Cherry: I believe a guy and a girl can be just friends. / Cherry: One day you will find the perfect person for you. / Cherry: Am I a bad person? Character: You are a beautiful person. / Boyfriend, handing her red roses: Look - flowers.)

What's really really bad is that the camera just gobbles and slobbers over Cherry, played by Ashley Hinshaw, the whole fucking 110 minutes long - Cherry's face, Cherry's body, Cherry putting on make-up, Cherry dressing up, Cherry showering, Cherry making a happy face, Cherry making a sad face. It felt like being forced into an infatuated, horny guy's point of view, with the camera constantly showing her fuckability.

Here's an example: When her boyfriend breaks up with her, telling her he finds her job and thus herself disgusting, the scene is intercut with the scene of her having her first "boy-on-girl" intercourse. We are SHARING the guy's mindfuck, the cinema in his head. How does she feel about doing it for the first time in front of the camera? No idea. 

Why does she want to enter the porn industry? How does she feel about this? Not clear - She lies to her mum about her job but likes it that her boyfriend tells his mom. Does she have plans or dreams or motivations? Are there things that she likes, apart from touching herself? Who is this person that every goddamn character in this movie falls in love with?

I could not see why for the sake of heaven. I vaguely got the feeling that I was supposed to see this empty shell as fresh, uncorrupted, naive, sweetly manipulative (only an infatuated guy can think her game is cute). She speaks in this babyish California way. She pokes fun at her best friend once for working in a bookstore (how is she not annoying?!). Same friend is obviously utterly besotted by her and it is not at all believable that she would be unaware of this while she prances around half-naked before him or settles to sleep with her face in his lap.

What Cherry thinks or feels remains utterly obscure, because appparently it is not a topic the film is interested in. Worse, I slowly got the feeling that she simply doesn't think or plan. This film is being vaguely described as somehow feminist, "women taking control of their sexuality" and so on ... - are you kidding me? Since when is liberated sexuality for women equal to porn? I guess this comes from the fact that all of Cherry's men grow uncomfortable with her doing what she's doing, and that she her workplace seems to be governed by supportive, beautiful women. And you could say it subverts the pretty woman story in that her rich lawyer boyfriend dumps her because he cannot deal with her doing boy-on-girl (apparently, striptease was fine) and she continues porn instead of repenting to him.

But where exactly is her sexuality in this? Unless I am meant to believe that there is actually no difference between her act and the real thing because Cherry's self-pleasuring looks exactly the way it looks when she's doing it for the porn camera (really? REALLY?!). The nature of desire and sexuality is never questioned here. The lesbian filmmaker is totally enthralled by Cherry's first striptease, which has her dressed kind of like Britney Spears "Hit me baby one more time" (this was actually a bit funny). 

I hesitate to say it, but I will: It was offensive, depicting heteronormative porn as indistinguishable from real women's sexuality and desire.

Worse in a way, it was boring. I'm not into Cherry. So she is thin, blonde, with big boobs. The constant assertion of her beauty by every fucking person in the film was just annoying. Her being described as "a work of art" only made me think Really? and look at parts that could be "better" about her, which I hate doing. It's a sad sad thing, but women do this to each other, and I found it unlikely that in an industry where looks are so important people would walk around constantly high-fiving each other.

In the end, Cherry hooks up with the camerawoman and ends up being a camerawoman too. (Why? How did this happen?) Obviously, the idea was to have a happy, a-job-like-any-other ending. But if this film had been about any other job, say, a secretary, I'd also have wanted to know what she likes and hates about her job - Is it repetitive, how about the business outfits, is the boss a wanker who earns a zillion times more than her, or does she feel powerful making people wait, knowing that things depend on her to go smoothly? 

There is James Franco in this film, Lili Taylor, Diane Farr as well as Heather Graham, all great actresses. You wonder.

The next day I was a bit more forgiving. There have been some good documentaries on the porn industry recenly (like this one), so I guess a) I'm spoiled and b) it's probably a hard topic to fictionalize. 

If you want to have a peek, go for it (you have to endure about seven minutes of horny photographers - or fastforward - and then you'll get some scenes and interviews)

Anyway, if blonde is your type, you can go watch this film. Bring tissues.

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Leading Actress (Glenn Close), Best Supporting Actress (Janet McTeer)

Let me spare you unneccesary agony: There is no Boys Don't Cry climax in Albert Nobbs. I wish I'd known that before I saw it, as it was I was quite tense throughout, always expecting the worst.

Instead this film about a woman who lives as a man in 19th century Ireland is a thoughtful and beautiful glimpse into the life of an invisible woman. 

Nobbs works as a butler in a fancy hotel in Dublin, keeping to herself with no ties to anyone. She is saving up every penny to one day open up a tobacco shop where she would be independent. Her life is cast into turmoil when she meets Hubert Page, another woman living as a man and learns that Hubert has a wife. Suddenly another life, less miserable seems possible, a life that can be shared with someone else.

Glen does a great job playing Nobbs, in my opinion not because she passes well as a man (it is impossible to forget that she is Glen Close), but because she plays a woman who lives her life passing as a man. Nobbs has withdrawn so far into herself out of fear of being discovered that her face has become a stiff mask.* Hardly ever do we see an emotion flit across it in the first part of the film. Only when she begins dreaming about her new life her features soften and a childlike naivite and longing replace the expressionless facade. Close plays these emotions flawlessly and without needing a lot of dialogue. I found myself glued to her face and especially her eyes. 

We pity Nobbs, it is hard to really like her, she is so alien and socially inept. By revealing her vulnerability Close nevertheless manages to elicit our sympathy for this strange person. That is no easy thing to pull off, so I say nomination well deserved.

 

* At first I thought this was at least in part the result of the heavy make-up that Glenn Close wears in order to make her more masculine, but later in the movie, when Nobbs begins to open up a bit more, it becomes clear that is not the case. 

by nomsa

Nominated for Best Documentary

If a Tree Falls, contrary to its subtitle, is not so much the story of the ELF as it is the story of Daniel McGowan. Daniel worked with director Marshall Curry's sister when he was arrested on charges of conspiracy and arson in 2005. He had participated in the action against a lumber company and a tree farm in 2001, burning both businesses to the ground.

Daniel's story, how he became interested in the environmental movement, how he became radicalised and how he turned his back on militant action, serves as a tool to help us understand the motives of so-called "eco-terrorists". We don't really get an overview over the history of the ELF or even radical environmentalism in general, instead the film focuses on this small group that formed in Eugene, Oregon in the late 90's. Many of its members are interviewed apart from Daniel, but we also get to hear from "the other side", the investigators who cracked the cases after years of trying to arrest the group and the owners of the businesses that were targeted. 

All in all it is a very balanced film. It does not go into discussing the environmental issues or the morality of the arson attacks. It focuses on the personal stories behind the events, what led the group to this point and how it changed them. This is both the strength and the shortcoming of the film.

We get a real insight into Daniel's thinking and at the same time we can understand and maybe remember how much more prone to radical actions we are as young people. Although I've never been heavily involved in environmentalism it was easy for me to imagine that under the right circumstances my life could have easily led me down that path. It makes the film feel very personal and relatable.

But the fact that it is such a mature look at these actions of idealistic kids also makes the film more forgettable. It doesn't manage to conjure up the passion that they must have felt at the time. It shies away from taking sides, and somehow that ends up meaning that no side is really presented.