*I had to repost this because the Wikileaks ‘hacktivists’ activity going on right now is as close to a global revolution as we have got lately, and this triple bill puts some of that spirit in context.
[Row Three programming if we owned a Rep Cinema]
The Revolutionary Triple Bill
V for Vendetta – 1pm
Hunger – 4pm
Che (both parts) – 7pm
When does a terrorist become a freedom fighter? How much would you sacrifice for a belief? How does the power of myth distort reality? This programme is about revolutionaries that live by a code as the world around them tires. We begin with fiction, a comic book dystopia in V for Vendetta. Out of the ensuing chaos of a plague-stricken England, an Orwellian police state forms, and as the populace resign themselves to their lot a revolutionary known only as V attempts to make everyone remember what happened on the 5th of November. When Vendetta originally came out, slotted as a summer blockbuster and the first big project associated with the Wachowski Brothers since The Matrix, it’s fair to say, and with no pun intended, it bombed. Taking from the densely political graphic novel and making something with as much levity as 1984, it disappointed the popcorn crowd, as it did me on the first viewing; on revisit, and in context of this triple bill, the potency of some of its ideas rise to the surface. Even this far after 9/11 the bite of Vendetta’s role reversal with the audience sympathizing with the terrorists is still there (in one scene V says blowing up a building is about destroying the symbol of power it represents). Vendetta satirizes the complacency of the modern world and the fascist undertones of the global village all from a particularly English perspective, which flows nicely into the otherwise stylistically diverging entry of this programme, Steve McQueen’s Hunger.
The Brits are still the oppressors but in this story the stakes are real, the ideas, emblazoned in history. Bobby Sands’ part in the IRA hunger strikes of 1981 made him, rightly or wrongly, a martyr for his people and his wish for a united Ireland. In their clothes and blanket protests, the political prisoners of Maze prison fought with every bodily fluid against the steely resistance of Thatcher’s England. The harrowing depiction of what they endured has echoes of Evey’s prison stint in Vendetta, the reliance on small mercies and the anecdotal ideal of what is worth dying for, but Hunger evokes far stronger the physicality of the sacrifice that is required. Watching Bobby Sands disintegrate after a long bout of torture and degradation is an act of endurance that makes substantive the ideas played up in Vendetta. The filter of revenge vis-à-vis The Count of Monte Cristo is lifted and you are left with the visceral realities at play in the revolutionary sacrifice. The standout scene of Hunger is the seventeen-minute single-shot debate between Bobby Sands and a priest over, among other things, the philosophical significance of his hunger strike. It is the heart of the movie, and by position and weight of its arguments, the heart of this triple bill, pitting the value of sacrifice for an ideal over the bodily safety of appeasement.
Steven Soderbergh’s Magnus Opus on Che Guevara never gets this explicit about the reasoning of revolution, it chooses instead to show in a multitude of seemingly mundane moments what it is to walk in the shoes of a revolutionary. Like Hunger, it shows the very real stakes of this commitment while providing a voyeuristic experience for those contemplating their own ethical and political leanings, but as a hagiography it keeps its feet firmly on the ground. The iconic revolutionary is here broken apart and put back together into a fascinating mosaic, a Che that accepts a little make-up when going on television, but holds fast to the code of solidarity over individual glory in the field. Hunger is oppressively insular, you feel the magnitude of Bobby Sands’ plight in his confinement in the prison, and only in flashback to his childhood do you get any sense of the wider world, the expanse of freedom he is dying for. In sequence, Che feels like a breathe of fresh air, as Soderbergh recreates as accurately as possible the guerrilla warfare of the Argentine in the jungles of Cuba and Bolivia. Like Sands and V, Che is fatalistically bent towards death, in each film this conviction never wavers, death seems to be the least they could offer for the cause. Is this fanaticism or saintliness? Soderbergh resists telling the audience what to think about Che through his mosaic approach, what you get are the disparate pieces that make up a man, and it is up to the audience to determine whether all the pain and suffering was worth it. As V proclaims in Vendetta, the body may deteriorate but ideas are bulletproof; by becoming mythic, Bobby Sands, Che, and V, become immortal.
Great triple bill. I love all of these films (I was a fan of V for Vendetta form the start gate though I like the graphic novel more) but for me, McQueen’s HUNGER is the standout. So much greatness in that film.
I’m hopeful that Assayas’ CARLOS is worthy of fitting of being listed among these.
I just read the graphic novel, I loved it, I also appreciate the changes the film makes, and with the exception of Portman’s annoying British accent, the film is far better than I remembered. Love the prison sequence, I think it captures the graphic novel perfectly in that scene. Rewatched Hunger on blu-ray and I love it even more it is extraordinary. McQueen’s first film makes Criterion thats pretty special, still waiting for a follow-up
I haven’t seen Carlos, has it come out on dvd? I was also toying with Greengrass’ Bloody Sunday, linking IRA and the idea of protest, but in the end these three work best together I think
Haven’t seen HUNGER since VIFF last year. Will have to pick it up at some point but it was a difficult film for me to watch. Not an easy revisit but one I want to make eventually.
CARLOS is still playing the festival circuits. Not sure if it’s playing TIFF but it’s one of VIFF’s selections.
I thought so too but I loved Hunger more the second time around… its ugly and beautiful at the same time, and actually fairly short, and that scene is masterful, its not just ‘wow how do these actors remember their lines’, its what they are saying, how natural it is and how the argument shifts back and forth until Bobby gives his childhood anecdote and, like the priest, you are left speechless, suicide becomes virtue. I expected Hunger to be all about a guy starving to death, but that element is largely excised from the story, you jump to the very end pretty much, what it is about is how much the body is suffering long before the hunger strike, hence how seemingly necessary the act was.
Criterion missed an opportunity, the cover should have been the vortex of shit on the prison wall.
I wasn’t a big fan of the actual presentation of V For Vendetta, it didn’t always work and as mentioned Portman’s accent is grating, but I was fascinated by the ideas. I’ve bought the graphic novel, but not got round to reading it yet. I imagine I’ll love it.
Hunger is fantastic though. I caught that at Cannes in ’08, it got the biggest ovation I’ve ever witnessed at a festival. I’m desperate for McQueen to work on something new.
Very good lineup, Rot. I’ve only ever seen V for Vendetta once, but I did enjoy it a lot more than I thought I would.
Rot – for that Hunger Criterion cover, they DID do pretty much the next best thing by making the shit vortex the image on the disc itself.
Damn, Hunger is a great movie. Among its many other merits, I find it particularly disturbing yet fascinating how the movie depicts the human body and works its way up through a sort of hierarchy of bodily fluids.
This has seriously got to be one of the most perfectly attuned trifectas of film screenings ever put together. I’m not a huge fan of V but unlike others here I really liked Portman’s performance (the ballerina scene helps
. I’m not sure which of the other two films is better; either technically or as a piece of entertainment. They’e both pretty rock solid choices. This would be a fantastic (albeit long as hell) set of films to sit through.
Ever since Criterion teamed up with IFC they have been picking great great films. Both Che and Hunger came in that first batch, and I think Hunger is a brave choice because it is a relative unknown, McQueen is known as an artist but not a filmmaker… not sure how many times Criterion has picked a film from a first-time director before.
btw I just bought blu-ray of Crumb from deepdiscount.com for $22, best deal I have seen for it so far.
On the Criterion front, I picked up Last Year at Marienbad. The premise sounds awesome. Anyone caught this Resnais film?
Re Last Year at Marienbad – It kept coming up during INCEPTION discussions so I picked it up. Haven’t had a chance to see it yet but hope to soon. Right after the move.
I’ve mentioned Marienbad a few times recently on some of the other discussion boards. I had heard so much about it being glossy and opaque beforehand that I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It’s a fascinating exploration of memory, longing and, I think, storytelling. The way that the film invites you to create your own interpretation of the characters and their relationship with each other really is quite brilliant – and a good deal of fun as well. This movie absolutely rewards repeat viewings.
Throw out these boring, inane films (though I haven’t seen Hunger) and go for The Wind That Shakes The Barley, Braveheart and United 93 for a more nuanced post-movie discussion.
The terrorists in United 93 as freedom fighters… yeah that would shake things up here
This so-called “cyber-war” and the frothing at the mouth fascist response by those in power seems to me to be a direct parallel with V for Vendetta, and contrary to popular opinion I think it is a solid enjoyable film. I read the graphic novel and the film is a worthy adaptation.
I just LOVE that Sarah Palin got hacked, that brought a Guy Fawkes smile to my face.
I haven’t seen Wind that Shakes the Barley, I know I should.
I didn’t like V much, but I didn’t like the novel much either. I don’t think the movie didn’t do it justice.
But yeah, murk things up a bit. Che? Snoozefest.
I have watched Che three times this year, I can see the complaints that it is a series of quiet moments, some may say dull moments, but for me I like what it does with the hagiography of this mythic figure… grounding the revolutionary into something tangible… people love the romantic aspects of revolution but in Che you get a feeling of what it is to walk in his shoes… and it ain’t glamorous.
http://i.imgur.com/owqwG.jpg
It is only terrorism when it is against you, if it is in service of you, it is freedom fighting, sayeth Chomsky.
I guess he saw the cartoon too.
The graphic novel was written by a satanist, and the matrix by 2 knostic brothers. In the V 4 Vendetta gNovel, V over and over again says: ” Do what thou wilst shall be the whole of the law.” A famous Alyster Crowley “Quote”
Satanist view a Godly LAW GOVERNED world as turanicle and fascist. They are anarchists who do what they will….. The Illuminati created and owns Hollywood.