Reader Info
Advertising, subscriptions, staff, privacy policy, contact info, freelancers' guidelines, etc.




On Film
The Reader's movie blog | RSS | Archive | Search


Maybe the media circus surrounding Brian De Palma's Redacted (see Pat Graham's recent post) will spark the kind of water cooler chat that gets people into theaters, but the saber rattling has overshadowed any discussion of the director's artistic intentions. When I first saw the movie in September, at the Toronto International Film Festival, I was struck by how stylistically different it is from his previous works; De Palma met the challenge of shooting a high-definition video feature on a $5 million budget by radically reinventing his approach to storytelling. Much as Barry Levinson recharged his creative batteries with the low-budget satire Wag the Dog, De Palma regains the vigor of some of his best 70s and 80s work using mock Web sites, blog posts, camcorder footage, and surveillance tapes to present a fictionalized version of the 2006 killings of a Mahmudiyah family by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

At the Q & A following the first Toronto public screening, De Palma said he was inspired by a movie he'd seen at the festival the previous year, Bruno Dumont's Flanders, about the rape of a Middle Eastern woman by French soldiers and her revenge. (Thematically, Redacted also harks back to De Palma's 1989 Vietnam drama Casualties of War.) When a man in the audience asked why Americans aren't protesting the war in Iraq on the same scale as they did the Vietnam war, De Palma replied this was because images of the carnage aren't being seen as frequently in TV and print news.

The next morning at a press breakfast he expounded on that comment: "Well, all this stuff is out there; it's either on the Internet, or they've made videos or DVDs. I looked at Iraq in Fragments—there's a whole bunch of them, I looked at them all. We're talking about [alternative media showing] the actual conditions of what's going on over there, as opposed to the sanitized infomercials we get from the embedded reporters. I found it, and I found the form in which it was presented; that's what dictated the structure of the movie. All this stuff we basically copied from what was out there, and we had to change or redact because we couldn't get the rights to use this, or [the producers] worried about some lawsuit from somebody."

I asked him if the growing retreat of media consumers to outlets tailored to specific demographics might have something to do with the lack of broad-based protest. "I don't know the statistics," he responded, "but as the Internet becomes more commercial I'm sure then that news [there] will start to be corrupted too. The day news started to make money, that's when everybody was in trouble. It wasn't supposed to make money. You weren't supposed to have talk shows and book deals and commercials and be hanging out with all the powers that be to get them on your talk show. You can't really insult the vice president and expect him to come on your talk show."


Images:


 
Comments
(please read our policy)
pat g.
November 19th - 4:26 p.m.
the "stylistic differences" btw/REDACTED and de palma's other films have been widely alleged, yet i find the idea pretty misleading * since aside from budgetary constraints, REDACTED seems at least as professionally sophisticated--in a technical sense anyway--as anything de palma's done before * which might be the main problem with it, since the movie never actually LOOKS like what it purports to be: too studied and aestheticized, lighting, camera setups, etc, all precisely calibrated (including the handheld sequences), and principal actors never less than interpretively on: there's no psychological downtime to anything they do

an example of what i'm driving at, the "terrorist" beheading video: the camera pans to catch murdered man's blood spurting dramatically on the floor ... a very "hollywood" notion, don't you think?--not something a presumably impromptu camera operator, who'd be having enough trouble just keeping his basic setup in focus, would be likely to attempt * besides which: it's utterly irrelevant--the point is a plainspoken record of a purportedly "factual" event, not some baroquely spurting decorator's garnish

and however much you enjoy puccini operas, doesn't quoting TOSCA at the end suggest a cultural occasion rather than war zone disaster? * a vicious, frothing canine, like the one at the close of DOGVILLE, would've made more metaphoric sense
Brad
November 20th - 10:21 a.m.
"Much as Barry Levinson recharged his creative batteries with the low-budget satire Wag the Dog..."

OK...but as far as I can tell, that recharge pretty much ended with Wag the Dog as well.
Enkidu
November 22nd - 7:56 p.m.
I liked Redacted. A powerful experience, no doubt.
Btw, he wasn't quoting Puccini opera. He was using the music instead of soundtrack. No other meaning than that. It is an emotional piece of music that perfectly fits the montage.
pat g.
November 23rd - 10:09 a.m.
ENKIDU--it's the "perfectly fits" part i'd disagree with; a snapping, snarling doberman would've fit better ...
Josh
November 25th - 6:46 p.m.
I am confused by two things in this post. First, the classification of a Hollywood film starring Robert de Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Kirsten Dunst, and Woody Harrelson as "low-budget." Second, the words "creative" and "Barry Levinson" in the same sentence.
Andrea
November 26th - 10:32 a.m.
Replies to one and all, first to Josh. Although New Line Cinema had a big success a few years earlier with The Mask, when Wag the Dog was released in 1997, the independent production-distribution entity was still considered a scrappy maverick taking on Hollywood. (Four years later, of course, New Line's first installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy would change all that.) When Wag the Dog opened, its reported $15 million budget was considered small, and compared to some of Levinson's previous pictures, it was. Estimated figures for some of those budgets: $28 million for The Natural, $25 million for Rain Man, $40 million for Bugsy, and $55 million for Disclosure. The low budget for Wag the Dog was made possible, in part, by some of the bigger stars taking smaller salaries than usual up front. De Niro's Tribeca Productions was one of the production companies, and Hoffman won an Oscar for Rain Man, so one can see how these two stars might have been inclined to work for less than their usual fees. And if they did, the others would most likely follow. As for Josh's disputing Barry Levinson's creds as a "creative," let's just say I understand where Brad is coming from when he opines that Levinson's follow-up films didn't have the charge of Wag, but I think early in his career the filmmaker was indisputably creative: Diner, The Natural, and Rain Man all still hold up, although I would have to see Good Morning, Vietnam again to decide how much of the punch of that movie had to do with Robin Williams, and how much with Levinson's direction.

I agree with Enkidu: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Pat, De Palma didn't make all his musical choices for the Redacted score by weighing what works as a metaphor, nor was he obligated to do so. Just the sound of a piece is often enough of a reason to use it.



On Film Blogroll

©1996-2008 Creative Loafing Media All Rights Reserved.   We welcome your comments and suggestions.