War Photographer (on DVD)

2001’s Oscar-nominated documentary War Photographer introduces to us one of the coolest character in recent movie memory, and best of all, he is real. James Nachtwey, considered by many as the best war photographer in the world, has a natural presence on screen himself. Filmmaker Christian Frei follows Nachtwey on several of his assignments in Indonesia, Kosovo and Palestine. The end result is not only a paean for a great professional, but also an expose of so much ugliness that still exists in the world. Nachtwey has a movie star good look and a head of hair I am sure that any middle aged men would die for. However, far above his appearance, his inner calm, compassion and unbelievable bravery dominate the screen. I truly believe that Frei may have tried to catch him in a flux some time, but really unable to. Nachtwey seems to have reached the highest spiritual level that all religions have tried to induce people into. His job is everything to him and he genuinely gains satisfactions from what he does even though that has made him sacrifice any prospect for a family or a close personal relationship. With all the praise heaped onto his work, he still remains humble and even guilty of gaining fame from other people’s tragedies. I, for one, am grateful for what he has done and deeply touched by all the images he has taken under extreme situations. In his own words, Nachtway summarizes the importance of his photographs, “In a way, if an individual assumes the risk of placing himself in the middle of a war to communicate to the rest of the world what's happening, he's trying to negotiate for peace. Perhaps that's the reason for those in charge of perpetuating the war do not like to have photographers around.” He also asks us to do our job, “We must look at it. We're required to look at it. We're required to do what we can about it. If we don't, who will?” So please get your hands on this movie and look at these images.

The Host

In the 1950s, a small Japanese film swept through America and left us with an iconic film character. Its cultural influence is still palpable today. That film is Godzilla, named after a beast resulting from American nuclear weapon testing. Fast forward to 2007, a new monster has been released on screen. This time it is a mutant emerging from Seoul’s Han River and once again it is a result of American’s disregard of our environment.

Director Joon-ho Bong’s The Host is marketed as a horror movie, but it is much more of a social commentary on world affairs, society and culture than merely a scary movie. The narrative device in this movie is a familiar one, that of an ordinary man, with the help of his ordinary family, embarking on an adventure to save his only daughter who is snatched away by the mutant at the beginning of the film.

I am the first to say that I am weak hearted to watch horror genre and usually spends half of the time watching through my fingers. However, The Host is not a typical horror movie. It may be branded as such to attract more audience into the theater. Bong is not interested in showing us all the gore and violence; by today’s technological standards, the mutant in the movie is quite crude and even goofy at times; there is no horror staple shot – a lone figure in the dark for almost like an eternity while the audience may be dying from the protracted anticipation of the evil launching out of the dark. In fact, Bong has no interest for any of those typical horror stuffs. He is too busy trying to unveil another kind of horror, a kind that you cannot hide behind your hands, a kind that shakes your psyche. Even thought they are two very different movies, The Host reminds me a lot about Children of Men. They both paint a very bleak picture for our future while holding on to a ray of hope.

Bong knows what he is doing. The Host is not showy yet there is not a single dull moment. His ordinary hero concept is simple but the plot is full of twists and turns. The Host showcases Bong’s ease and skill at moving freely among different genres. It is hard to pinpoint the movie into any specific genre. Bong apparently doesn’t want to be tied down to any particular cinematic language and is unrestrained in his artistic expressions. To some audience, it may be hard to fathom emotionally, but I completely enjoy it, especially the dry humor throughout the movie. Even at the height of horror or some dramatic high point, Bong is able to manage a laugh or two. In the middle of mourning the dead in the mutant attack, some official comes in and asks who has parked a car illegally. You cannot help laughing at the absurdity of the situation even if you are in the middle of a tear-jerking moment.

Bong and Chul-hyun Baek put so many culture, human relationship and world politics references into their dialogue that The Host is destined to become a cult classic and every single line will be analyzed to death by future die-hard fans. After all the people exposed to the mutant are quarantined, they are eager for some explanation. A government official comes in and turns on TV, letting media to explain the situation. This one single shot says so much about world today – how we have become completely dependent on the media to provide any information. There are many such small revealing shots in this movie.

Bong also understands that a good movie needs the audience to invest emotionally in the characters. When we fully identify with the characters, their plight becomes real to us and their words penetrate into our heart. Bong rarely presents the horror in full frontal, instead he likes to demonstrate it through people’s reactions. When dealing with violence, Bong is brief and matter-of-fact. There is no lingering death in this movie. When a major character faces the mutant, he simply accepts his fate and death is swift and nothing gratuitous here. The most heartbreaking scene for me is near the end of the movie. When the daughter, a middle school student, says to the little boy who is also captured by the mutant that she will get the police, the 911, the military to save them, her innocence and naïve belief in all these authority figures just break my heart. She does not know it is exactly those institutions that have failed her. Like Children of Men, the world governments are the cause for most of our miseries. In The Host, irresponsible American military creates the monster and in the end, they bring in more harmful stuff to kill the monster and inevitably hurt more people as well. The South Korean government isn’t portrayed any better in the movie. The corruption, bureaucracy and inefficiency seem to be the common disease in governments everywhere. Again as in Children of Men, the saving grace for mankind is ourselves, the basic kindness and decency deep inside each of us and the love we feel for our family and fellow earthlings.

Being a Korean film, The Host does not have the kind of ending that Americans are usually used to. However, the last shot in the movie is not only beautiful aesthetically but also makes a clear statement of Bong’s belief – a lone food stand in a vast icy expanse symbolizes our last defense against any evil, which is the love of our family.

The Namesake

Just recently I read Jhumpa Lahiri’s Pulitzer Prize-winning short story collection, Interpreter of Maladies. She camouflages immigrants’ fascinating explorations of a new country with everyday life and her themes of love, family and relationship do not just apply to immigrants, but can relate universally as well. I liked the book so much that I recommended it to my book club to read. When her novel The Namesake (I have not read this book) was adapted and released on big screen, I eagerly went to see it. It is such a disappointing journey that I hope audience won’t dismiss the author simply based on this movie.

The movie is directed by Mira Nair, one of most accomplished female Indian filmmakers working today. While not a big fan of Kama Sutra, I have thoroughly enjoyed her previous work Monsoon Wedding. Along with Deepa Mehta, they are my two favorite female Indian directors. Both Nair and Mehta help to bring India to American audience’s attention, yet they show us two very different sides of India. They both have deep love for their native country, but Mehta intends to use movies to reveal the dark, ugly side of India that is not well known to outsiders, while Nair likes to showcase the modern, vibrant India and its average citizens for the world to see. So it is not surprising that Nair is attracted to Lahiri’s works. Like Nair, Lahiri’s stories are a tapestry of lives in India.

The Namesake is a story about how an immigrant family tries to integrate into a new country without completely surrendering their native culture. In western civilization, we are quick to dismiss any other culture different from ours as barbarian or backwards. Lahiri, herself born in London and raised in America, does not pass judgment. She merely compares Indian customs with western ones. In her stories and this movie, arranged marriage is not so much as some old-fashioned way of life that should be abolished in this day of age as a viable alternative to our free-to-choose marriage. In The Namesake, there are success and failure in either kind of marriages. Arranged marriage is not synonymous to loveless marriage. Actually love often runs deep in arranged marriages written by Lahiri. Often parents pass their wisdom to their children that will be fully appreciated when they are older, which is the case in this movie. The movie is beautifully shot scene by scene, but unfortunately, it is forever put on a sentimental slow mode to try to jerk some tears out of the audience. It does not have any of the vibrancy that Nair has displayed so well in Monsoon Wedding. The music score is constantly in the background and so overwhelming that it does not give the audience any room to savor any emotions by themselves.

Maybe Lahiri’s books are better read than seen on a big screen. Her stories usually don’t have a big dramatic arc and The Namesake clearly demonstrates it. In the movie, we are misled by the filmmakers to believe there will be some major revelation regarding the son’s name, Gogol, but when the time comes, it is such a letdown and only serves as an anti-climax. Lahiri’s stories are more about subtle feelings than building up any suspense. Nair and screenwriter’s attempt at building any suspense in the plot is truly a waste of time and only becomes terrible clichés. Only briefly Nair brings some excitement on the screen. Right after Gogol’s wedding, Gogol and his bride break into a Bollywood dance number, but the lively entertainment is short-lived and lasts barely a minute. Also either due to Lahiri’s original writing in the book or the screenwriter’s adaptation, the few white characters in the movie are extremely one dimensional, shallow and caricaturized that they do not serve as good counterparts to Gogol’s Indian parents.

The Indian actors who play the parents Ashoke and Ashima have done a wonderful job conveying immigrants’ mixed feelings living in a foreign country. Kal Penn of Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle fame is a questionable casting here. He plays the important role Gogol, yet whenever he is on screen, Kumar just keeps jumping into my mind. He is a terrific comedic actor and maybe I am just being too difficult on him.

Maybe I should have just checked out The Namesake the book and skipped the movie.