Film Review #5 - “OF GODS AND MEN”

Director: Xavier Beauvois

Run Time: 123 minutes

Cast: Lambert Wilson, Michael Lonsdale, Olivier Rabourdin, Roschdy Zem, Sabrina Ouazani.

Language: French

When I think of monks I think of the most noble of human characteristics. I think of service, faith, devotion, and self-sacrifice. I think of strength and reliability. I envision tranquility. I envision peace. Monks are love and simplicity personified.

Now, thanks to the meticulous and extraordinary directing of Xavier Beauvois, I not only thought of these things, but I felt them as I watched “Of Gods and Men.” Not typically a fan of slower paced movies, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. I was captivated by the way in which Beauvois was able to perfectly capture the noble virtues espoused by these men of the cloth.

Beauvois understood the point he was trying to convey, and he chose the style of shooting that would best convey that point. One of the tools he used to help us experience these qualities was his masterful use of cameras, cuts, and pacing. Beauvouis relied almost exclusively on long, fixed-camera takes, and scenic panoramas in order to create a slow pace for the movie. One could say the movie crawl along through lingering shots. Not only that, but the object of these long, steady takes was usually some monotonous chore or activity of the monastery’s inhabitants which exaggerated the already slow passing of time. It was not uncommon for Beauvois to spend a full 30 seconds watching Christian (Lambert Wilson) pour honey into jars or Doctor Luc (_________) taking a walk or even just watching the trees blow in the wind. It also made me feel like I was actually in the movie and living with the monks in their spartan lives. I firmly believe that this was the only real way to accurately convey the characteristics of these monks, which was the point of the film.

Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed was Beauvois’ demonstration of the monks’ tremendous self discipline, hard work, reliability, and close communion with God through nature. Throughout the film, several things remain constant: prayer and hymns, duties and rituals, and fellowship with the other monks. The inflexible way in which Beauvois presents us with scene after scene of prayer, daily chores, meetings, and work or reflection in nature produced within me a feeling of great repetition. I felt like I was on a strict schedule from which I could not deviate. Each aspect of the monks’ lives was made to seem routine and inexorable by the consistent flow of each type of scene in approximately even intervals throughout the film.

Furthermore, this rhythmic flow of spirituality, manual labor, productivity, and fellowship with the other monks (through meetings and rituals) also gave me a sense of deep devotion. The kind of devotion and self-discipline that could only come from God. As I watched the reactions of some of my fellow viewers in the theater, many became weary of seeing the monks’ repetitious lives played out on the screen without end.

However, I think that this was the point. Beavois wanted us to grow weary of watching these men do the same thing over and over again day-in and day-out. He wanted us to feel like we were itching to move on as we watched the monks give themselves completely in service to an impoverished village of local Muslims who were neglected by all but the monks of the Christian monastery. He wanted us to feel these things so that we might appreciate what it is like to commit oneself entirely to the love and sustenance of others even in the midst of one’s own poverty. He wanted us to feel a sense of awe at the incredible work of these men who lived only for God, and through God, only for the betterment of others.

Whether the monks were making honey, growing crops, or providing free medical care to the poor, these men always lived for the glory of God through service to the community. They even listened to the complaints and problems of the locals, offering advice when they could. For instance, in one scene early on in the movie, Doctor Luc listened to the plight of a young local girl who was suffering under the weight of an arranged marriage to a man she did not like at all. Not only did he listen, but he offered advice, comforted, and consoled the child. Such were the services these monks provided to the town.

Another method in which Beauvois communicated simplicity was through the lack of music in the film. Only once did Director Beauvois use music aside from the monk’s hymns, and that was only to illustrate a dramatic, dynamic scene in which he paved the way for the ending of the movie. Otherwise, Beavois used absolutely no music. He only used the noises that would occur naturally in the course of acting, talking, worshipping, and communing with nature. The result was a feeling of great peace, tranquility, and simplicity. When one of the monks went outside to pray, one could only hear the crunch of his footsteps, the tweeting of the birds, and the sound of his whispering prayers. I felt as if I was actually in the scene, praying with the monk in the solitary woods instead of feeling like I was in a movie theater watching a monk pray in the woods. The difference between the two is the difference between a mediocre director and an award winning director like Xavier.

Indeed Xavier Beauvois knows how to tell a compelling story about an incredible group of real men. Even in the midst of terrorist attacks, these monks stood their ground for the good of the community in which they served. They struggled to bring peace to a world of chaos, and love to a world of hate. If you want to know what it is like to truly serve and to love, then I strongly urge you to go see “Of Gods and Men.”

Reviewed By: Hunter Hodge

Film Review #4 - “BIUTIFUL”

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Run Time: 105 minutes

Cast: Javier Bardem

Language: Spanish

The most striking aspect about “Biutiful” is without a doubt Director Inarritu’s use of imagery and symbolism in the film. In a place where the question of life and death is always uncertain, one entrepreneurial peddler of fake merchandise named Uxbal (Javier Bardem) spends his days between bribing cops and raising his children in a dilapidated apartment far from his abusive and bipolar wife Marambra.

As the story began, I felt a guilty mix of compassion and scorn for Uxbal. On the one hand he is doing everything he can, including talking to the dead and risking the consequences of stealing from his boss, in order to do whatever was necessary to support his children. On the other hand, however, Uxbal is bribing policeman and breaking the law in order to facilitate the exploitation of Chinese immigrants. He is like a homeless man on the side of the street. He is a man you want to love because of the poverty and adversity he faces, but at the same time you feel repelled by the stench of his occupation (or lack thereof).

Soon enough, however, the discovery of his malignant prostate, bone and liver cancer, along with an introduction to his bipolar, drunken, prostitute of a wife quickly made me pity the man enough to view him a tragic hero worthy of my support.

But just when I began to really care about Uxbal and his daily struggle to survive, Director Inarritu begins to give viewers signs of Uxbal’s deteriorating health condition. One of my favorite uses of symbolism in “Biutiful” is Inarritu’s use of the state of the apartment to reflect the state of Uxbal’s life and character. In the first part of the film, just after we learn that Uxbal is diagnosed with cancer, we watch painfully as the dying man lies in his meager apartment, staring up at a water-damaged ceiling speckled with the first signs of mold. In the midst of this somber scene, an equally solemn tune drowns out all other noises and leaves us alone with Uxbal to contemplate the struggles that lay ahead. As many of us know, these black markings on the surface of the ceiling reflect a more ominous sign of structural damage and rot. This rotting ceiling symbolizes several forms of decay: the physical degradation of Uxbal’s body as it is consumed by the cancer, as well as the corruption and general weakening of his family.

One might also think that this element could symbolize Uxbal’s state of acceptance with regards to his affliction. In any case, though the water damage to the ceiling is definitely a problem, it is not as pervasive as it could be. Similarly, though Uxbal is beginning to deteriorate physically (he is urinating blood and suffering from fatigue), his family is beginning to suffer more in terms of their relational strength and connection to one another (Uxbal grows frustrated as he yells at Mateo and strikes the kitchen table), and the fact that he is showing signs of shock and resistance to his fate (like telling his lady friend “I am not ready to go”), the circumstances are still not yet an imminent threat to future of his family.

In our next visit to the bedroom, however, the story is very different. Around the middle of the film, we see Uxbal again staring up at the water damaged ceiling with the somber music drowning out all distractions and focusing our thoughts on his pain. In fact, the damage has grown to cover most of the ceiling. Moreover, not only is the damage fully black and molded, as opposed to predominantly brown and gold with speckles of mould, but a massive swarm of moths have taken up residence on the toxic patch of ceiling. As a universal symbol of death and decay, these creatures reflect the deteriorating conditions of Uxbal and his life. Several troublesome events warranted this change in the condition of the apartment ceiling.

First of all, by this point in the film, Marambra has physically and emotionally abused Mateo (Uxbal’s son) by hitting him repeatedly in the face and leaving him all alone while his sister, Anna, and mother, Marambra, traveled to the Pyrenees Mountains together. This catastrophe resulted in a literal tug-of-war between Marambra and Uxbal for Mateo. In the aftermath of the struggle, the family’s strength and solidarity hit an all time low. Additionally, Uxbal’s symptoms had been worsening as of late with increasingly common episodes of bloody urination, vomiting, and excessive fatigue. Lastly, his hope and feeling of helplessness were at an all-time low while his desperation and fear of death reached new heights. Thus the bonds holding Uxbal, his mind, and his family together were rotting away leaving in its wake nothing but decay.

Finally, by the end of the film, we know that Uxbal is dying. He has given up hope for saving his own life, but in the process has found a new kind of salvation for his family. Her name is Ige. Ige is the wife of one of Uxbal’s friends and subordinates in the fake merchandise business. After a police sting operation and the deportation of Ige’s husband (Ekwewe) left her without a home or income, Uxbal took her and her child into his own home in spite of his illness. Ige proved to be a blessing to Uxbal in his final days. Not only did she help care for Uxbal himself, but she also began taking care of and loving his children in a way their own mother never had. Thus, as Uxbal finally came to terms with his fate, saved up money for his children, found them a new care-taker in Ige, and gave Mateo and Anna special keepsakes to remember him by, the mould and the moths disappeared from the ceiling. Only light brown watermarks stained the ceiling in a small corner.

A close up of Bardem’s face and the gradual shift from his usual tan, leathery countenance to the pale, chalky pallor of death confirms the passing of this weary man. Death’s cleansing of Uxbal’s corrupted body completed the purification process, and the last scene of this wonderful movie ends with a repetition of the first – Uxbal alone in the pure white snow of cold winter day, save for the companionship of his deceased father. Thus Inarritu reminds us that life and death are all part of an inexorable circle of human existence.

Reviewed By: Hunter Hodge

Film Review #3 - “FREAKONOMICS”

Director: Morgan Spurlock, Alex Gibney, Eugene Jarecki, Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady, and Seth Gordon

Run Time: 92 minutes

Language: English

“Incentives matter.” This means that people do things because they value those things more than they value other alternatives. “Correlation does not prove causation.” In other words, just because something looks like it is dependent on another thing, it may actually have a different explanation altogether. These are two of the most fundamental concepts of human behavior not only in business and economics, but in life in general.

In the documentary entitled “Freakonomics,” Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubus (authors of the book of the same name) explain these fundamental concepts of human behavior in simple, easy to understand terms such that anyone may appreciate and apply them in their own lives.

Through elegant and concise narration, the two authors use a series of simple analogies to make these abstract social concepts applicable in the lives of every human being. Often cartoonish, goofy, and somewhat juvenile in their on-screen depiction of certain analogies, the documentary feels light, curious and informal. Levitt and Dubus’ explanations emphasize their dedication to revealing these two core truths in a way that is understood by all no matter your educational background.

The documentary is broken down into 6 sections. Each section explores a different analogy which demonstrates one of the two core principles of human behavior in every day life. Such topics explored by the authors include the relationships between baby names and future success, crime rates and abortion, and incentives structures inherent in issues like cheating in the world of Japanese Sumo wrestling, Teachers cheating for their students in the classroom, real estate agents bias in the sales of existing homes, and parental bribery in getting our kids to do their work. The first three of these subject matters provide an excellent insight into the power and production method of this provocative documentary.

The first section deals with a socioeconomic issue. The question is whether or not baby names, particularly the possession of “distinctively African-American names like Shaniqua or Jaquan” determine a person’s future success.” The data, for example, shows a correlation between lower pay grades and distinctively African-American names. The data also confirms that children with more Caucasian names tend to have higher pay grades. This might lead one to conclude that racism and a more African-American sounding name will doom the bearers of such names to poverty.

But remember…correlation does not prove causation. In fact, upon examining the data further, Levitt and Dubus found that this discrepancy in pay and quality of life is most likely due to the poorer conditions and quality of neighborhoods that these children grew up in rather than their name. The authors discovered that parents from poorer communities with lower levels of education are much more likely to give their babies distinctively black names in order to “prove” their blackness as compared to similar households of greater income and education levels who adopted more Caucasian sounding names. Thus Levitt and Dubus said that though people with distinctively black names tend to earn less than people with more Caucasian sounding names, the true reason for the discrepancy is the environmental conditions and education levels of the area in which the child grows up, not the name itself.

Another case of the principle of correlation versus causation was the spike in crime rates during the late eighties and early nineties and its subsequently dramatic fall in the mid nineties. People were shocked that just as crime rates seemed as if they would continue to rise forever, it suddenly dropped dramatically in the mid-nineties. Among many of the theories cited for this phenomenon was an increased number of active duty policeman, increased numbers of arrests, more innovative policing tactics, and general economic improvement.

The men of Freakonomics, however, refuted that these were the primary causes of such a dramatic fall in crime rates. Though these explanations did account for a combined total of about 50% of crime reductions according to the authors’ analysis, the much bigger reason for crime reduction was the 1973 legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Levitt and Dubus convincingly demonstrated how the 1973 legalization of abortion helped to combat the greatest factor in criminal potential in young children and therefore the greatest factor in crime rates – unwanted pregnancies and poor parental care. Since women could now abort babies they did not want or were not ready to have, they could choose to wait and go on to have babies later when they would truly love and not neglect the child. In fact, the data shows that crime rates began to fall almost exactly 15 to 20 years after the legalization of abortion when the unborn babies of unprepared mothers and homes would have been in the prime crime-committing age of 15-25 years old. Also, the data indicated that, of mothers who choose to abort, the population of such mothers goes on to have birth rates equal to rates of women who have never aborted. Thus correlation does not prove causation.

However, though Levitt and Dubus determined the underlying problem to be unwanted pregnancies and neglected children, I believe this is yet another symptom of a deeper problem. I believe that underneath this symptom is a lack of maturity, education and responsibility on the part of these young men and women having babies before they are ready. For instance, if women who choose to abort go on to have normal birth rates later in life and the key factor in determining criminal behavior truly is the absence of a loving household, then the real issue is that young people either cannot properly assess the risks and consequences of their sexual activity or they are too immature to think or care about them. If a person cannot handle the consequences of his or her behavior, then it seems logical that this person should not be engaging in that behavior. Thus I believe the solution should start with instilling greater personal responsibility and education into these young parents as opposed to turning to abortion to provide an escape from mistakes.

An example from the film where “incentives matter” was the case of rampant cheating in the prestigious and respected Japanese sport of Sumo wrestling. Officially, the wrestling world and many spectators vehemently denounced such accusations of scandal, and it was indeed hard to prove. However, Levitt and Dubus devised a brilliant yet simple way to mathematically test these accusations by looking at the incentives structure of Sumo matches. They reasoned that since Sumo wrestlers with 8 wins and 6 losses in a typical 15 match tournament stood little to gain from one more win (8 wins would bump a wrestler up a great deal in prestige and monthly pay) while wrestlers with 7 wins and 7 losses stood the most to gain, then these men would have the greatest incentive to throw the outcome of a match. Thus this is where Levitt and Dubus began their investigation.

They found that a typical cheating agreement consisted of a Sumo with 8 wins allowing the 7 win Sumo to get that 8^th win, and in return the newly victorious Sumo would allow the 8 win Sumo to win in their next meeting. In fact, although one would assume that Sumos with such close records of wins and losses should compare almost 50% to 50% in terms of the number of victories in that 15^th match, the economists found that the Sumo with only 7 wins beat their 8 win counterparts nearly 75% of the time. Similarly, of those 7 win Sumos that beat their 8 win counterparts, the 8 win Sumos beat the 7 win Sumos almost 100% of the time in their next meeting! Therefore, by using the knowledge that incentives matter, Levitt and Dubus were able to analyze and prove the existence of cheating in Japanese Sumo.

In sum, “Freakonomics” was a refreshingly creative and innovative take on the questions we face in our lives on a daily basis. It was insightful, provocative, and easily understandable. In fact, I believe that everyone with an inquisitive mind would be remiss should they pass up an opportunity to learn more about the curious case of human behavior. Therefore I would not only recommend everyone to see this documentary but also to buy the book as well. You will not be disappointed.

Reviewed by: Hunter Hodge

Film Review #2 - “BLACK HEAVEN”

Director: Gilles Marchand

Run Time: 100 minutes

Cast: Louise Bourgoin, Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet, Melvil Poupaud

Language: French

When the black and white distinction between online video games and reality blends to gray, the internet can easily become a weapon of destruction. As the internet becomes the primary means of interaction between people all over the world, who is to say that the person on the other end is really who he claims to be? At what point does the internet cease being an engine for creativity and empowerment, but rather becomes a tool for destruction? Destruction not only as a weapon wielded against others, but also against oneself? I loved “Black Heaven” because its enlightening commentary on the dangers of obsessive internet use (specifically gaming) addressed these questions with great beauty, insight, and effectiveness.

“Black Heaven” opens by introducing us to a young couple in love as they swim and frolic with friends along the beach on one summer afternoon. When the young lovers venture away from their friends to spend some more intimate time together, they hide in a bathroom stall where they find the ringing black cell phone that sets the whole plot into motion. As the movie progresses, we find out that the phone belongs to a young, seductive blond woman named Audrey. Though beautiful and charming, Audrey is hiding a dark secret. Under the influence of her brother, she lures males into her bed through an online video game called “Black Hole.” Often times it is actually her brother these men are talking to instead of Audrey, but once they meet the beautiful blond she either talks them into committing suicide or her brother kills them himself. The targets are chosen by her brother for their vulnerability, low self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts that eventually show themselves in the course of the victim’s relationship with Audrey.

Though tragic and murderous, this plot actually started out in a somewhat noble attempt by Audrey’s brother to prevent the “creepy, suicidal type” guys from stalking and influencing his sister via the “Black Hole” game. However, his protectiveness soon turned sadistic when Audrey’s brother jokingly suggested one such “creepy” guy to end it all and jump off a bridge. Then the man actually did it. From then on Audrey’s brother seemed to revel in the power, and began the game that is the plot of this movie.

My first thought after seeing the movie was, “oh my gosh, the internet is a terrible thing!” But upon reflection I realized that, like some other inventions, the internet is merely a tool whose impact depends on the user. In “Black Heaven,” it was Audrey’s brother that murdered these men, not the internet. Indeed the lines blurred by the internet open up greater opportunity for misuse and abuse, but the real culprit is us. It is the people who choose to use the internet to destroy lives or tarnish reputations that are evil, not the internet itself. In fact, the internet can be used for tremendous good for everything from charity fundraising (UGA Miracle) to business promotion and selling (Amazon.com or any other business) to education and literacy (ugalibs.uga.edu or thomas.gov).

Moreover, I believe that the director of the movie understands this concept of user responsibility. That is why they portrayed the brother in the cruel light he deserved. However, Marchand was also wise in making us aware of the internet’s potential for facilitating dangerous and destructive behavior. For instance, a great general always knows his army’s weak points and predicts his struggles so that he can combat them more effectively. In the same way we must know the potential dangers of the internet and how it can appeal to our weaknesses. Thus “Black Heaven” does society a great service by pointing out our own weak points as well as the conditions the internet creates which may prey upon our weaknesses and cause us do things we otherwise would not.

The three major aspects of the internet which “Black Heaven” cautions against are addiction, misrepresentation, and reduced inhibition.

In fact, the film all but claims that the addictive nature of online games and the ability to literally live your entire life on the internet without ever meeting people face-to-face, can kill a person either metaphorically or literally. There are people who carry on the vast majority of their business and personal relationships by emailing, gmail chatting, or playing video games on the internet. In this way people commit social suicide by killing their social life and physical interaction with others. I believe this is what Audrey’s and the other men’s suicides in the film actually symbolized – a person’s voluntary social death through addiction to the internet.

Secondly, “Black Heaven” clearly exposed the problem of misrepresentation and deceit that is so easily exploited on the internet. Considering everything from Facebook to Modern Warfare and The Sims video games to E-Harmony, nobody knows for sure who is actually sitting at the computer on the other end of the network connection. In the movie, Gaspard always thought Audrey was the one talking to him through her Avatar, named Sam, in “Black Hole.” In actuality, it was Audrey’s brother, a psychotic murder bent on killing him, who was on the other end.

Thirdly, the film did a great job of demonstrating how easily the internet, which lends itself well to anonymity, reduces people’s inhibitions and thereby allows us to do or say things we would not do or say otherwise. For example, take Gaspard’s lustful affair with Audrey. On his own and face-to-face, Gaspard would probably not have asked Audrey to sleep with him, and thereby cheating on his girlfriend Marion whom he loved dearly. However, through the cover of anonymity in the “Black Hole” video game, Gaspard used his Avatar (which Audrey did not know was Gaspard) to ask Audrey to sleep with him and thus cheat on Marion. Gaspard is a respectable, loving young man who would have never committed such an offence upon meeting with Audrey in real life.

Additionally, the movie further emphasized this particular danger through the story of how Audrey’s brother came to be so sadistic. Before he started playing “Black Hole” for the purpose of defending his sister, the movie tells us that Audrey’s brother would not have dreamed of killing anyone. However, once the anonymity of the game and the Avatar allowed him to voice his anger without repercussions by berating and telling a young “creepy” man to kill himself, he became consumed by the power. Then he moved to manipulating his sister in order to kill people. Finally, by the end of the movie, he had fallen so low as to actually try and kill Gaspard himself in the hotel room during the staged encounter with Audrey.

Overall, the movie deeply impressed upon me the dangers of the internet as the lines between reality and cyberspace have become increasingly blurred with the advance of the web and other electronic devices. Director Gilles Marchand demonstrated great skill in conveying this feeling, and some of the techniques which I think impacted me most were how he interspersed gaming scenes with the live actors throughout the movie as well as his use of “Black Hole” screenshots to “act out” important scenes in the plot development.

I particularly enjoyed the opening scenes in the movie where the lovers and their friends are jumping off of a diving board into the ocean. Marchand, however, places clips of Gaspard’s avatar, Gordon, chasing Audrey’s avatar, Sam, up a flight of stars, out across a rooftop, and over the roof’s ledge in between each of the young people jumping off of the diving board. This blend of scenes in the shot sequencing created the feeling that reality and cyberspace are indeed blending together into one experience, which is the premise of the movie.

Other artistic elements of the movie that I enjoyed were Director Marchand’s use of foreshadowing and symbolism. Not only did the opening scene mentioned above foreshadow the male victims’ willingness to follow Audrey into suicide, but he also uses music and a dog to foreshadow events that will take place in the movie. For example, Marchand consistently uses the theme song of the “Black Hole” video game to foreshadow an encounter with Audrey. Every time she is about to come on screen, the eerie, somber tune begins to play. Additionally, I believe the golden retriever symbolizes the influence of Audrey’s brother and foreshadows tragedy to all with whom he locks eyes. Gaspard, and Marion encounter the dog for the first time when they track Audrey and her lover, Dragon, to the hardware store and later to the woods when they hear the dog yelping as Audrey and Dragon try to commit suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning in their car. Thus here Dragon has been marked by Audrey’s brother for death and tragedy falls upon him.

The second time we meet the dog is in Audrey’s brother’s apartment, and the dog leads Gaspard to Audrey. Soon afterward, tragedy besets Gaspard as he becomes infatuated with Audrey and snubs Marion. Moreover, in the last scene at the police station, the dog is the one who leads Marion past Audrey’s evil brother to the weeping Gaspard, and the tragic revelation of his exploits with Audrey, the game, and the killing spree.

Finally, the entire plot of the movie is summed up in a single scene of tremendous symbolism – the pool scene. In my opinion, it is an incredibly powerful, yet simple and elegant scene which conveys the whole storyline without uttering a word. It goes like this. During what is shaping up to be a night of sex, drugs, and general revelry between Audrey, Gaspard and his two other friends, Audrey gets up from the couch and goes out to the swimming pool behind the house. As the young men are watching, Audrey begins to slip off her bathing suit and slide into the pool naked. For a while the young men simply ogle her as she glides through the water and looks back at them in an apparent invitation for them to join her. Clearly excited, the boys begin to do undress as well, but as soon as they slip into the pool, Audrey begins climbing the stairs out on the other side. I believe this symbolizes the way in which Audrey skillfully manipulates victims with her beauty and sex appeal to convince them to slip into heavenly bliss with her by committing suicide (in the game, the way you get to the Black Beach, essentially Heaven, is to kill your avatar – commit suicide).

Therefore, the combination of an artistic, aesthetically pleasing film with the insightful, real world themes concerning the internet make “Black Heaven” one of the better films here in Cannes. I would definitely recommend seeing this movie and will probably end up buying it on DVD as well.

Reviewed By: Hunter Hodge

“BROTHERHOOD”

Director: Will Canon

Run Time: 82 minutes

Cast: Arlen Escarapeta, Jon Foster, Lou Taylor Pucci, Trevor Morgan

Language: English

What do you do when you are torn between your allegiance to your friend and your allegiance to your family? What do you do when you know that the right thing to do (and the thing that could save your friend’s life) could also land your friend in prison and tear your family apart? These are the questions that Director Will Canon poses to the audience in his new film “Brotherhood.”

A riveting and emotionally relentless thriller, “Brotherhood” follows the story of the brothers of Sigma Zeta Chi as one of the Fraternity’s initiation rituals involving pledges robbing convenience stores turns from hazing to a full-blown shootout and crime spree in the blink of an eye. The plan was simple: the pledges would be driven to a convenience store where they would be goaded into running out and robbing the store. What the pledges did not know was that there was always a brother standing around the corner to prevent the pledge from actually committing the crime. It was supposed to be easy. It was supposed to be an illusion. It was only a test to see whether the pledges were “man enough” to rob a convenience store.

But on this night, there was a grave miscommunication and Sigma Zeta Chi pledge Kevin (Lou Taylor Ricci) actually did try to rob a store. The ensuing gunfight got the Sigma Zeta Chi thief shot in the arm. This simple misstep set off a whole chain of criminal activity ranging from hazing to kidnapping to manslaughter as the brothers frantically tried to avoid jail by telling one lie after another and enforcing them with one felony after another. By the end of the film, the young men had learned a hard lesson in the follies of escalating commitment and sunk costs along with the dangers of peer pressure.

Throughout the ordeal, the leaders of the Fraternity (namely President Frank played by Jon Foster) used frequent appeals to the members’ sense of brotherhood and belonging in order to hold the group together without getting into trouble. Some of the most common threats and guilt trips included, “Don’t betray the brotherhood,” “Do not go to the police or the brotherhood will be ruined and you will be thrown in jail.”

The film’s many intense shouting matches between members arguing over the best way to handle each new problem demonstrated an excellent and thorough analysis of the sheer power of peer pressure and the influence of organized social institutions, like Fraternities and Sororities. For example, in one scene, Kevin’s best friend Adam (Trevor Morgan) adamantly insisted that Kevin be taken to a hospital immediately. However, after a yelling match with Frank in which the Fraternity President threatened to blame the failure of the Fraternity on Adam’s “over-hasty” desire to take Kevin to a hospital, these appeals to brotherhood unity convinced Adam to delay taking him to a doctor until they their medical-student friend saw him first. Such instances where peer pressure and instincts for self-preservation overrode logic continued to abound throughout the night as Kevin’s life continued to be put at risk by his failings. Though Adam, Kevin’s best friend, believed from the beginning that he should be taken to the doctor, the combined pressure from other members to delay the hospital visit and thereby save the Fraternity nearly cost Kevin his life.

Although the film centers upon some of the more notorious hazing practices of some Fraternities, I believe that the principals and dangers exposed by the film can be applied to all aspects of organized human life. For example, in corporations and in schools we often find ourselves having to decide whether to expose a corrupt or cheating friend, which may help them in the long run, or to “help” them in the short term by ignoring such offenses. We want everyone to win and no trouble to come to our friends. What keeps us going in our trap of escalating commitment is the driving hope that we can make the “best” solution work; the solution in which our friend is made better while the offending behavior is stopped. However, this is often difficult, unpredictable, and potentially dangerous to all involved as Kevin could attest firsthand.

Therefore I believe viewers should not be too quick to cast judgment on these young men when such situations are clearly difficult and universally applicable.

One of the things that made this movie so emotionally tense and powerful for me was my personal history with Greek life. As the former Risk Manager, Judicial Board Chairman, and Member of the Executive Board of my Fraternity for the last year, it was my job to manage our Fraternity’s liability and deal with any problems that did occur. It was a 24/7 job that required me to think through and plan for all of the scenarios presented in “Brotherhood,” and on several occasions deal with the immense pressure that came with combating Fraternity problems. Though none of the problems I faced rivaled the scale of those catastrophes faced by SZC in the movie, I still bore a tremendous amount of stress every minute of every day during my tenure. After all, as “Brotherhood” so effectively demonstrates, you never know when one little mistake could have dire, even fatal consequences.

One example that many college students may be able to relate to is the decision of whether or not to take a friend to the hospital for excessive drinking and alcohol poisoning. Though seemingly a clear cut case, deciding whether or not to make the hospital trip can be difficult when you are trying to balance the person’s legal and health interests, as well as the Fraternity’s and your own interests. The person may just be tired, drunk and just passed out, or they may actually have alcohol poisoning and die. Thus the potential outcomes vary greatly and this makes the decision all the more difficult. We as human beings try to maximize everyone’s outcomes but in the process often make things worse as the brothers of Sigma Zeta Chi found out the hard way.

In addition to the personal connection I felt to the film, I also enjoyed it because of the film’s use of sound and cinematography. Director Will Canon’s decision not to use any sound or music outside of the dialogue and real-life background noises strongly enhanced the palpable tension and suspense the audience felt for the entire length of the feature. By not using any music, the harsh, frantic exchanges between the young men of the Fraternity made the whole experience feel raw and sincere. It made me feel as if I was right in the midst of all of these problems, and combined with my history in these kinds of stressful experiences, I was on the edge of my seat debating the best course of action right along with the brothers. Furthermore, the cinematography further contributed to the feeling of utter chaos and desperation by rapidly cutting or panning from one scene or actor to another in choppy, rough, jolting movements in order to keep pace with the quick movement of the actors.

Thus “Brotherhood” could be summed up in three terms: escalating commitment, peer pressure, and self-preservation. Each principal fed off of the other two and created a viscous circle in which problems were unnecessarily created and compounded. The moral of the story then is to tell the truth, and not put oneself in the kinds of situations that facilitate such corruption.

Not only would I go see this movie in theaters, but I would also buy it on DVD and watch it every year to remind me of these important life lessons. Who knows, if more people take heed of the cautions in this movie then maybe we will not have to deal with the likes of another Bernie Madoff or Kenneth Lay in the future.

Reviewed By: Hunter Hodge

Pre-Trip Review

Hey everybody! Can't wait to get to Cannes for a month of awesome experiences, but before we go, here is my pre-trip review. I chose to review "The Hurt Locker" (2008) a couple of weeks ago for several reasons. First of all, seeing as how it has won so many awards and the praise of many critics I was interested to see if it lived up to the hype. Secondly, I love watching war movies not just because I like action, but also because war is such a controversial and dynamic subject that I like to see how directors portray it. Whether the film seeks to use the context of war in order to engage the audience with an epic adventure and tails of heroism (as in films like "Troy" and "Braveheart") or whether it seeks to make a social or political statement (like in Cameron's "Avatar") there is never a shortage of lively debate and diverse perspectives. So without further ado, here it is.

"The Hurt Locker" (2008)

By: Hunter Hodge

In preparing to watch this movie I was actually very reticent because I thought it would probably be another run-of-the-mill anti-American, anti-war movie. I was surprised to find, however, that though there were definitely anti-war sentiments, these were expressed more on the individual, human level as opposed to the macro, political level as was so unashamedly displayed in James Cameron’s “Avatar.”

Set in Baghdad in 2004, “The Hurt Locker” is an intensely psychological movie focusing on the personal trials and experiences of three men working to defuse bombs in the streets of the ravaged Iraqi capital. Never knowing whom to trust or when they may draw their last breath, we follow Sgt. First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) as they face death, uncertainty, and heartbreak on a daily basis.

Beginning with the opening scene in which partners Specialist Owen Eldridge and Sgt. Sanborn struggle to identify the good guys from the bad and watch in horror as their routine mission literally blows up in the face of their leader, both men are forced to cope with the transience of life while working to accept a new leader in the form of the uncontrollable Sgt. First Class Will James. Often labeled a rogue with “wild” and “careless” tendencies, Sgt. James is a far cry from Sanborn and Eldridge’s now deceased former commander who had been more of a father figure than a cowboy. Amidst the pain of grieving their commander, Eldridge and Sanborn quickly come into conflict with Will as the “Sarcastic Soldier’s” unorthodox and seemingly care-free ways put all three men in mortal peril on more than one occasion.

At one point, in a clear demonstration of the psychologically corrosive effects of war, Sanborn seems to enter into a murderous trance in which he plots to kill Will and cover it up. The director pulls the audience into this frighteningly gripping scene as he flashes back and forth between music-blaring humvee transporting a care-free Will to find his lost gloves, and the motionless close up of Sanborn’s face in which the audience clearly sees the calm, calculated development of Sanborn’s plan to kill Will and cover it up. This masterful sequence of frames, combined with the mix of camera shots of innocent Specialist’s horrified face leads the audience to sympathize with the soldiers’ plight as each viewer contemplates what he or she might do in the midst of war when no one was looking.

In fact, I think one of the most powerful things about this movie, and which Director Kathryn Bigelow executes flawlessly, is the ability of the picture to grab the audience and throw them into the difficult psychological struggles faced by our soldiers everyday. The film seems neither to cast shame nor praise on our soldiers fighting on the front lines, but rather to sympathize with them and show us that nothing is ever cut-and-dry in life or in war.

Another gripping scene that pulled on my own heartstrings and forced me to question my ideals was one in which several US Marines have just captured an injured insurgent who tried to blow up a car bomb that would have killed hundreds of US soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians. As an eager US medic is treating the wounded insurgent, he shouts in excitement to his commander that the man can be saved. However, the commander, obviously a seasoned veteran of the war and its many casualties, omnipotently and sneeringly replies “No he won’t,” and turns away from the insurgent as another Marine walks up to the man and shoots him.

The reason I found this scene so compelling was how it drew out the conflict between my fear and loving protectionism of my fellow countrymen (the Marines), and my desire for peace and love of all human life. In fact, my first reaction was to stand up and cheer the commander. I was incensed by this bomber’s murderous intentions to ignite the city, its people, and “our boys” in flames, and thought aloud, “Good, he got what he deserved.” And then I caught myself. As I saw the hardened commander juxtaposed to the eager medic doing his best to save this man’s life as if he were another innocent emergency room patient back home in the US, I felt the tug of my love for humanity and value for human life begin to fight back at my bitterness, hatred, and lust for vengeance.

So how do we cope with these competing feelings? That is the tragedy of the common soldier and the cruel price of war that our brave soldiers pay everyday. Sworn to protect, defend and provide a better life for the innocent and those they love, our brave men and women are doomed by that same promise of hope and commitment to violate the very principles of life, liberty and happiness they have sworn to defend. Thus I believe the moral of this story is to suspend our judgment of others, whether soldier or insurgent, until you have lived and suffered in their shoes.