euanthes

Telling a story about the inherent contradictions in both indigenous and colonial cultures and their practices is hardly an easy aim which all too often ends up recklessly spinning off into unfair stereotyping or outright cliché - either quick to villainize colonialists as imperialists who have no sense of moral uprightness and cast the repressed indigenous peoples of some region as morally perfect peoples living in a utopian integration with nature ... or the other way: the way conquerers often told the story lauding the good empire and denigrating the savages. This movie commits neither error. It explores the stereotypes and the moral highs and lows of both groups.

I don't think I've seen a more probing and honest film about this sort of subject since Last of the Mohicans (Michael Mann). Though the production quality and budget are not near what they are in a Mann film, there is something actually brilliant about how this film is done WITHOUT the loads of cash which would typically ensure a production like this to be at very minimum, eye-candy watchable. It is a far greater accomplishment and leaves me bewildered why Ian Sharp and Nicholas van Pallandt aren't getting more credit than seems to be showing up here at IMDb.

Maori of New Zealand and bushmen of South Africa (though not directly represented in the film) comprise indigenous groups which have had extensive experience with British colonization for a couple centuries and form a layer of history beneath all of the action taking place in this film. The protagonist, Arjan van Dieder (Ray Winstone), plays a similar sort to his role in Cold Mountain as a man with a tough shell from a poisoned and violent past yet with a softer underbelly that could be at times vulnerable to coaxing. Keremea (Temuera Morrison) is the counterpoint to the protagonist (and nearly a second protagonist). The actor plays a Maori which is fitting enough since he IS one. The two actors play perfectly off one another's grit and tenderness.

There is one scene I would like to spoil though because the writing/direction is utterly impeccable. At the peak of the film there is a "discovery" which borders on psychologically cathartic and metaphysically salvific: at the cave/fire the fugitive & the tracker share a moment of sorrow separated in time and space but united where the solution to the fated, irresolvable moral entanglement is actually creatively worked out inside. This scene is incredibly powerful and proves this film to be written in a uniquely philosophical way meant to address the role of risk (to the point of self-sacrifice) and creativity (to the point of self- mutilation) when dealing with what seem to be insoluble ethical knots.

The scenery throughout the whole film is itself a character and would've been worthwhile without the incredible story-telling!

There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.

Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.

aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.

this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.

anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.

The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.