Foreign

My Movie Map: Traveling the World via Cinema

Posted on by bernardovillela

I finally did something I’ve been meaning to for some time: created my personal movie map. In short I found an interactive map and checked it off based on if I’ve seen films from each nation. Above you can see my results rendered. Less visible on the map is that there are small island nations I’m missing. Other things to consider are listed below.

—Where possible I tried to confirm that I had seen movies produced by and set in the modern-day incarnation of said country. Example: I didn’t check off Czechia and Slovakia until I found I had seen films by both since the break-up of the Eastern Bloc, or at the very least that an older film took place in that broken up region. This attempt to be accurate accounts for my spotty record in the Balkans and some former Soviet states. 

—International co-productions are common. I did not double-count films. Where a country seemed to be only involved in financing, they did not get the credit for the title. Instead I tried to attribute those films to, to the best of my recollection, to the nation that influenced language, setting and was most represented on the crew. Clearly, I need to see more middle eastern cinema, but if I counted one title to multiple nationas and allowed financing to factor in, a film like Theeb would’ve counted toward three or four different nations. 

—Some localities, for example Romania, Hungary, and Malta, are used by many productions in part because they can mimic other cities and because of tax incentives offered the production. Again, films not set, at least partially, in said countries do not count. This is why I didn’t check-off Malta but did check-off Hungary and Romania.

—Africa is my most sparsely viewed continent, it was made more so by strict adherence to the parameters I set. For example, Wah-Wah was my favorite film of 2006 it was set in, and a great deal of it was filmed, in Swaziland (now Eswatini). The production was British, much of the cast and crew were British also. Yes, the film is about the disparate realities of the British occupiers and natives, and the nation’s independence but it was a British production and a colonial story albeit a personal one. Therefore, Eswatini is not marked off and more than a few African nations have probably been filmed in by foreign productions and not reflected in this map. However, as my first exposure to Ousmane Sambène showed, indigenous filmmakers show you their country with an intimacy inimitable by even the most learned and well-intentioned visitors.  

I created this map from Your Free Templates hopefully you’ll make your own maps and seek out more global cinema.

Review: Michael

Posted on by bernardovillela

Introduction

This is a post that is a repurposing of an old-school Mini-Review Round-Up post. As stated here I am essentially done with running multi-film review posts. Each film deserves its own review. Therefore I will repost, and at times add to, old reviews periodically. Enjoy!

Michael (2011)

I generally remain vague about plot descriptions in my reviews. Philosophically I believe that if you happened upon my review you know enough about the film and you’re just looking for some further information. With a film such as Michael one does need to be forewarned: while not sensationalistic or exploitative this film does chronicle about five months in the life of a pedophile. You will be disturbed and affected by it: I guarantee it. What is most effective is that the film does so almost exclusively through implication.

The film edit of the film is tremendous and much of the dialogue on reflection implies so much more than is said. One example of how the film communicates horrible consequences while doing little is a simple visual: Michael and Wolfgang, the child he has captive, are setting up a bunk bed in his room. That scene has made its point and hits you in the gut.

What makes the film most harrowing is the humanistic portrait painted of Michael. With an act as awful as child abuse, whether of a physical or sexual nature, some films overplay their hands. Meaning they feel the need to make the antagonist over-the-top and borderline cartoony as if to re-emphasize the inherent villainy and cruelty of their actions. Yet more often than not that kind of writing takes a viewer out of the moment. This film takes things as mundane as decorating a Christmas tree, talking to a neighbor, or a haircut and tinges them with malignancy and implications that belie the simplicity of the line spoken or the action taken.

You also have in this film two performances that make this film work and they are those of Michael Fuith, who used his awkwardness to endearing effect in Rammbock, but here is intimidating, frightening, awkward, and charming as needed. Then there’s also David Rauchenberger, who while not in the film a tremendous lot, has the unenviable task of playing the victim who as times dour, at times detached, at times a child and also rebellious.

The craftsmanship of the film is what truly makes it work. There’s one scene that really doesn’t jibe with the restraint, and the ending is one I stewed on but decided it is earned, as a whole other film would start had it continued.

8/10