Roundup: The oblivious politics of 'The Impossible'
Also: Dressing 'Django Unchained,' and the sexism of 'Les Mis'
Ewan McGregor in "The Impossible."
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
Under-the-radar Oscar hopeful "The Impossible" may be one of the year's most emotionally battering films, but not everyone's feeling it -- as the adjusted true-life tale of surviving the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami continues to take flak for overwhelming focus on the white tourists affected by the tragedy. British historian Alex von Tunzelmann is among the least impressed, acknowledging the film's skilful construction, but writing: "The film seems unaware of its own politics – though it certainly has some ... Both at the beach and in the hospital, almost all the victims of this disaster appear to be white. The Alvárez-Belón family's story is moving, dramatic and true, and there's no reason it shouldn't be told; but it's a shame that that the film excludes any meaningful acknowledgment of the disaster's Asian victims while doing so." [The Guardian]
David Sirota, meanwhile, considers the racial discussion around "Dajango Unchained," and wonders how different the reception would be had a black director made the film. [Salon]
A great interview with "Django" costume designer Sharen Davis. So much going on in that film's sartorial choices. [Clothes on Film].
Stacy Wolf on why "Les Mis" continues to move millions of viewers -- despite its retrograde gender stereotyping. [Washington Post]
Mark Blankenship addresses the same issue, referring specifically to the "insidious kind of sexism" around the character of Cosette, but concludes that she's required to be insipid. [New Now Next]
Meredith Blake talks to "Life of Pi" marine consultant Steven Callhan, whose experience as real-life shipwreck survivor lent some authenticity to the magical-realist tale. [LA Times]
Michael Cieply examines documentary maker Steven C. Barber's self-funded Oscar campaign to get his film "Until They Are Home" nominated in the music categories. It's not a cheap business. [New York Times]
Steve Pond talks to Cristian Mungiu, director of the Oscar-shortlisted foreign language contender "Beyond the Hills" -- five years after the Academy's exclusion of his last feature partially triggered a major change to the voting system. [The Wrap]
Randee Dawn celebrates the multiple outstanding child performers featured in this year's awards crop -- whether they themselves find recognition or not. [Variety]
Not only is Russell Crowe unfazed by Adam Lambert's recent criticism of the live singing in "Les Mis" -- he doesn't even particularly disagree. Man's mellowed over the years. [THR]
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
A series of talking points and a full annotated transcript hit the netSaturday, May 25, 2013
-
Jim Jarmusch is on typically deadpan form in mildly amusing vampire filmSaturday, May 25, 2013
-
Audiences revisit Celine and Jesse this weekendFriday, May 24, 2013
-
Marion Cotillard and Joaquin Phoenix play out a bad romance in 1920s-set dramaFriday, May 24, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupDefRef
January 3, 2013 at 11:18AM EST Reply to CommentDo liberals understand how effing stupid they sound when they shriek "RAAAAAAAAAAAAAACISM!!!" about anything and everything that doesn't focus on a minority? I'm guessing here, but it sounds like "British historian Alex von Tunzelmann" is probably pretty pale-faced, so what sort of self-loathing must be eating him up inside to beclown himself like this? Are white folks' experiences not worth making films about? Paging Spike Lee...
Liz It might help if you actually read the article first, which you clearly didn't, since you don't seem to realize that Alex von Tunzelmann is a woman.
January 3, 2013 at 11:50AM ESTDefRef So change it to "eating HER up inside" and the point still stands. I'm so glad I didn't mistakenly use "it's" to indicate the singular possessive or else you would've had another nit to pick. Sheesh...
January 3, 2013 at 11:55AM ESTLiz My point (which you so inelegantly ignored) is that you didn't read the article before criticizing it. (Unlike the article's author, who actually did see the film before writing about it. Did you?). But I suppose that's just a "nitpick," right?
January 3, 2013 at 12:00PM ESTDefRef Guy's recap was sufficient enough to base my comments upon and looking now at the whole steaming pile of drivel this hysterian typed up confirms my thesis was spot on.
January 3, 2013 at 12:18PM ESTThere is no way to read self-hating liberal tripe like, "The Impossible is an accomplished and effective movie, and accurate in the story it chooses to tell – but it is ungenerous in portraying a disaster which mainly affected south and south-east Asians from a totally European perspective," and rationally conclude anything else.
There is nothing incorrect in my post so your attempts to use specious irrelevances to shout me down have failed. Alex - note the usage of the masculine form to hide her shame at being female; more self-loathing, compounded by the fact she's attractive and thus committing "lookism" upon the plain girls - is a typical liberal in that she enjoys all the cushy benefits of living in the First World, but is so torn up by guilt and shame she mouths the shibboleths of rage against her surroundings, but would never move out of the First World.
The British philosopher Roger Scruton coined term to describe this sort of attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.'" You know, like crying about a movie's "totally European perspective."
My point not only still stands, but has been reinforced. Perhaps you should've restrained your knee from jerking before goading me into finding the evidence to prove out my hypothesis.
Max I was going to write a sensible, level headed response to your drivel, but then I realized that you were and idiot and my only resolution this year was to stop engaging people like you in anything resembling rational argument.
January 3, 2013 at 12:24PM ESTWith that in mind: HOW ARE YOU? YOU TYPE VERY WELL FOR SUCH A SPECIAL PERSON! I'M VERY PROUD OF YOU! *pats head*
Kane If a movie was filmed in Asia, about Asia, that showed no Asians, do you think it's an accurate representation of Asia?
January 3, 2013 at 12:56PM ESTI'm with you, Max. I wanted to be a bit more sensible, really I did. But the more I look at it this person's missing their helmet.
Thomas You're adorable, Defref. You mindlessly recite Con propaganda and slogans, and yet you seem to actually imagine yourself to be capable of "rational" thought.
January 3, 2013 at 2:49PM ESTHere's a clue for you: Your kneejerk response reveals nothing about the intentions or thought processes of the authors - they only reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of your own worldview.
"But they're oikophobes! They hate themselves!"
"Alex - note the usage of the masculine form to hide her shame at being female;"
This comment expresses such utter presumptuousness and arrogance that it's almost unbearable to think that you actually consider yourself a "rational" creature. You have no idea why she calls herself Alex. Your guess as to why she does so doesn't even make sense on the most basic levels - that's because even those liberals who are prone to playing the blame game are likely to place most of the blame on (white) males, not females. If she was as much of a "traditional lib" as you suggest, she wouldn't feel shame for being a women - she would blame men for the misfortunes of the world. She would be glad she was a women, and not a man. (I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not one of those idiots who thinks that the various feminisms, which many closely associate with liberalism, are about "women wishing to be men.")
That you misunderstand such a concept only reveals your complete inability to grasp even the basic fundamentals of the liberal philosophies you rage against.
"is a typical liberal in that she enjoys all the cushy benefits of living in the First World, but is so torn up by guilt and shame she mouths the shibboleths of rage against her surroundings, but would never move out of the First World."
You haven't said meaningful here - you've just echoed (much like a parrot) the talking points of your favorite pundits and revealed your own ignorance in the process.
"You know, like crying about a movie's "totally European perspective."
When the movie is about a tsunami that affected Asia and killed hundreds of thousands of Asians - and yet focuses almost entirely on white Europeans - no, it's not that outrageous to criticize it for it's "totally European perspective." Especially when it's such a strong trend in many Hollywood (and "Hollywood-ish") films. When portraying a non-western culture, filmmakers almost always use a white surrogate while the actual natives are pushed to the sidelines - it becomes about the suffering (or the heroism) of the whites, rather than of those who were most widely affected.
You don't understand why someone would care about that - that's fine. However, in cases such as this, you'll find it's best to just stay silent - unless you really get a kick out of the sensation of making a fool of yourself. Your words make it abundantly clear that you don't understand the problem, and so you choose instead to focus on the straw liberals you have created in your mind.
Oikophobia is a legitimate term that can reasonably be applied to certain circumstances - but you use it as an "I know you are but what am I" type of response that makes you no better than that subset of liberals who see "racism" everywhere.
"My point not only still stands, but has been reinforced."
Says, uh... You.
"Perhaps you should've restrained your knee from jerking before goading me into finding the evidence to prove out my hypothesis."
The only thing you've given evidence of is for the fact that the mere thought of liberal ideology fills you with such rage that all your critical thinking skills shut down.
In reality, you're too busy battling straw men to actually understand what's going on. Yet you imagine yourself to have taken down the liberal establishment with your mindless accusations of "oikophobia" and self-hatred. Which, in reality, is actually kind of hilarious - a raging intellectual midget who imagines himself a clear-headed debunker of all things liberal.
DefRef Ah, the squealing sounds of liberals desperately trying to prove they aren't liberals by blathering streams of buzzwords and proclamations of their superiority which sound really bright to the voices in their heads (and other liberals) but evaporate under scrutiny any closer than 10 light years away.
January 3, 2013 at 2:58PM ESTIn addition to baseless arrogance and unbounded hypocrisy, the utter lack of self-knowledge is a signal trait of liberalism. The fact that your burblings can be condensed to, "U stoopidhed! Me smarts!" only makes your tirade more risible. Liberals can't rebut facts, so they attack personally, ascribing differences to mental issues and rage - "U mad bro? Y so angry?" - and never contemplating for a moment whether they may be wrong and/or lashing out in blind unthinking emotion.
It's a miracle you don't drown when it rains with your nose so far up in the air. Ta!
Kane Hahahaha I'm not liberal, retard.
January 3, 2013 at 3:29PM ESTTrey D. @Defref: What is your point? Honestly, I don't think anyone can make a proper rebuttal until you make a point. You attack von Tunzelmann for being a knee jerk reacting liberal suffering from white guilt, but you don't offer any counter to her points. Stories of "white folks' experiences" are valid, but this is the story of Spanish people. At some point during the creative process it was decided that the main characters would be played by English actors. The reasons for this are worthy of discussion and criticism and I appreciate von Tuzzelmann for doing so while honoring the craftmanship of those involved with The Impossible. So if you could make a point in rebuttal to the original article other than personally attacking the author of the article (or accusing others here of "liberal" guilt, which one has already addressed that s/he is not, then do so. Otherwise stop being such a troll.
January 4, 2013 at 4:23AM ESTDefRef
January 3, 2013 at 12:30PM EST Reply to CommentIn other words, lacking a rebuttal to my post - because it's absolutely correct - you're going to post something snarky because for people like you, this is how you try to pretend you're better than those you can't actually engage on the merits.
You know, you could've just skipped posting anything at all, but I'm guessing your jerking knee kept bouncing your keyboard up into your hands, much as poor Liz's did the same.
I've got work to do. Wasting time responding to people whose entirety of content is empty blather doesn't pay the bills. Alex is an oikophobe. End of discussion.
DefRef Hmmm, this didn't fall in line properly. Oh well.
January 3, 2013 at 12:31PM ESTMax Okay......breaking my resolution on the 3rd. Not a good sign.
January 3, 2013 at 2:09PM ESTIt's a movie about a tragedy that affected a mostly Asian population and somehow Hollywood has found a way to make it all about white people.
AGAIN.
I'm sorry if you can't see the absurdity inherent in the approach to this film. But, consistently taking historical events and injecting a white presence into them to them more palatable to American audiences is one of the most appalling things about Western Cinema today.
That's my position. Now I want to hear how you think this is somehow okay or fair to the rest of the world.
Damned Martian It's not a Hollywood movie. It's a Spanish movie, with Spanish money, made by Spaniards and about a real Spanish family. So, from a Spanish point of view, telling the story of a Spanish family makes total sense, since if it weren't this family's story, the movie wouldn't have been made at all.
January 3, 2013 at 2:31PM ESTYes, you may tell the story from a more global point of view, you can tell the story of some Asian family... but it would be a totally different movie. Sort of like making a movie about Lincoln fighting slavery instead of making a movie about the tragedy of slaves. Both films are completely valid, each one in its own terms.
Thomas Damned Martian - I can sort of agree. I'll still definitely see "The Impossible," and there's a good chance that I'll like it. I'm not outraged by any of this.
January 3, 2013 at 2:54PM ESTI think what's more concerning is the trend that it represents and perpetuates. This isn't an anomaly - it's another in a long line of films from the US and Europe that follows the exact same pattern.
Guy Lodge Damned Martian: Some might consider changing the Spanish family's story to that of a fictionalised British family a questionable cultural concession. Do you? I'm curious.
January 3, 2013 at 5:57PM ESTDamned Martian It may be sort of questionable. Nevertheless, I completely understand why they did it. It's one of the most expensive Spanish movies ever, if not the most, so casting international actors in the roles makes perfect sense financially: it would be really difficult to 'sell' a $50 million film with Luis Tosar and Marta Etura, both in international markets and within our frontiers (yes, I'm Spanish, but I guess you already guessed it ;) ). It's not that it couldn't make money in Spain, it's just that it couldn't make THAT much, and it would be very limited outside the country. It couldn't go wide in the US, for example. What I'm saying is that it was a very risky project, and without an international hook, it probably couldn't have been made in the first place.
January 3, 2013 at 9:41PM ESTBesides, it's not really a film that explores the cultural aspects of this family beyond the most general western/first world traits, nor has a real opportunity of doing so, instead focusing on family relationships and the psychological impact of this event in them. So making them vaguelly european (I understand that all the actors have maintained their respective accents, isn't it? Aussie, English, etc.) fits the story and doesn't really misrepresent its Spanish roots.
Damned Martian Thomas - Do you mean big budget coproductions that try to look like Hollywood movies? As far as I know, those have existed for a long long time, and it's a necessity of the struggling movie industry of these countries. You may love Chicken with Plums or Le Havre, but what makes money in France is Intouchables or Nothing to Declare. In they shot just the first ones, the industry in France would have collapsed. Same in Spain and other countries. Without big commercial successes (which are 80% mainstream films, 20% aart house flicks), there would be barely any film made at all. So, one thing for the other.
January 3, 2013 at 9:54PM ESTTrey D. Thanks for your thoughtful response, Damned Martian. You're right, although, isn't it sad that the company felt the need to alter the true story for comercial appeal. I don't blame them truly, but it says something about the way films are marketed these days.
January 4, 2013 at 4:27AM ESTDefRef
January 3, 2013 at 12:30PM EST Reply to CommentWrite a comment...In other words, lacking a rebuttal to my post - because it's absolutely correct - you're going to post something snarky because for people like you, this is how you try to pretend you're better than those you can't actually engage on the merits.
You know, you could've just skipped posting anything at all, but I'm guessing your jerking knee kept bouncing your keyboard up into your hands, much as poor Liz's did the same.
I've got work to do. Wasting time responding to people whose entirety of content is empty blather doesn't pay the bills. Alex is an oikophobe. End of discussion.
RichardZ
January 3, 2013 at 12:47PM EST Reply to CommentI like to believe that Russel Crowe put the acting first. Something about Russel Crowe tells me that he will not copy the stage musical version anyway. And I think he was largely successful and didn't mind it a bit. His final scene worked for me.
What I'd like to know is: for those who has not seen the stage version, would you have known that Russell Crowe was off?
meep Off key or off in the head? Sorry. I'm being silly. Reading all the above - unrelated - comments has made me delirious. I actually thought Crowe's singing voice was somewhat better than passable. I realize I didn't answer your question. Riding without my helmet again. Crowe's Javert seemed more driven than deranged.
January 3, 2013 at 1:41PM ESTantinook
January 3, 2013 at 4:48PM EST Reply to CommentThe hurt locker was heavily criticized for being too little faithful to the real routines of the soldiers in Iraq. Now you talk about very few asians on that hospital, as if there were some kind of duty with human mankind. I agree Damned Martian.