Double bill – Congolese gangsters and the back end of New Hollywood

Been dead busy sorting out all the Minicine stuff recently, which you'll hear all about pretty soon. Just thought I'd post this little nugget of a double bill though that I saw at the Media Museum last month.

Viva Riva (Djo Munga, 2010)



A Congolese gangster film following the character of Riva (Patasha Bay), who has returned to his home of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He’s there to make some quick money having stolen a truck full of fuel. He gets in all kinds of trouble as the Angolans from whom he stole the fuel come after him at the same time as he becomes infatuated with Nora (Manie Malone), who just happens to be Kinshasa’s top-dog gangster’s missus.

It features really two dimensional characters in a very simple heist/caper plot. In particular, the attempt at building a romantic relationship is pretty strained. The clichéd nature of these characters aren’t necessarily to the films detriment; they embody the sort of bluntness that genre cinema usually harbours. Along with this genre focus comes an enjoyably exploitative element, with an air of spectacle around the violence to varying degrees of success and around the sex to high degrees of success. Another welcome element of the genre heavy characters were the Angolan gangsters, led by Cesar (Hoji Fortua), who even seemed to have their own theme music cues. In this respect, they were very reminiscent of Bollywood-bad-guys.

The main strength of the film then comes off the back of this genre platform providing a simple canvass on which the film paints a picture of Kinshasa and the DRC. The background setting and the Congo's exterior locations, landscape and cultural references were well utilised in order for it to say something very true and honest about the country. Add to this the way that the Angolan characters are constantly remarking how much of a dump the Congo is. Further, Nora’s whole purpose is to show the corrupting influence the place has had on her and that the only way to be safe or have a future is to get out of there. The fact that the whole caper element surrounds the natural resource of fuel and its limited supply is telling of a country bereft with deprivation, bringing a power battle to control essential resources. An aspirational obsession with Western culture also shows a sort of confused cultural identity, i.e. They largely trade in US dollar bills as opposed to the Congolese Franc.

It would be interesting to see this alongside the Congo in Four Acts, a film I saw at this year’s Bradford International Film Festival.

A link to an interview with the director

Cutter's Way (Ivan Passer, 1981)



Rich Bone (Jeff Bridges) witnesses a mysterious figure dumping something in a bin. That something turns out to be a dead girl. Although he is determined to turn a blind eye and leave it be, Rich’s friend Alex Cutter (John Heard) along with the dead girl’s sister persuade Rich to persue their prime (though unconfirmed) suspect, the town mayor (or some such figure).

Although this is a very late New Hollywood film, I felt it had a mid seventies feel. It seems to be an extension of the rift seen in a film like Easy Rider between the two central characters and hence between two similar (still within the counter culture) yet removed notions of America and American identity throughout that period. A major difference here though is the physical and psychological scars left from Alex’s time in Vietnam, presumably - judging by his speech about hating the USA (see below)- against his will or better intentions.

Alex: “I watched the war on TV like everybody else. Thought the same damn things. You know what you thought when you saw a picture of a young woman with a baby lying face down in a dictch, two gooks. You had three reactions, Rich, same as everybody else. The first one was real easy: 'I hate the United States of America'. Yeah. You see the same damn thing the next day and you move up a notch. 'There is no God'. But you know what you finally say, what everybody finally says, no matter what? 'I'm hungry.’”

Alex is angry at the establishment, so determined to fuck it up somehow; he really didn’t care how he did it, who the target was or even whether or not they were guilty. This is significant; that despite it seeming clear and that Alex is in the right, there is no complete evidence or justification for anything. In this respect, all characters’ motives are quite ambiguous. The man that Alex focuses all his hate and accusations onto is the pinnacle of what he considered wrong with America. It almost didn’t even matter whether he's done what he's being accused of, it is simply the fact that he is this establishment figure that Alex needs to bring him down.

Bone's constant efforts to explain away Alex’s assertion is what angers Alex further and led to him incessantly referring to Bone as a coward, which seemes as though it's coming from Alex the 'Vietnam vet' to Bone who avoided going to war. More importnatly though it is much more about Alex as a militant member of the counter culture and Bone, who shares values but isn't willing to cross certain boundaries. Bone - in Alex’s eyes - is far too willing to settle down, join the establishment and make excuses for them, so they can continue with their action, in this case to carry on raping and murdering.

Oh and it needs to be stressed that John Heard's performace in this film is phenomenal!

True Grit (2010) - Amazing, despite its false justification of free market principles

Viewing Context:
Dragged my dad and my little cousin to see it when on a rugby league weekend away. Seven live games of rugby league and a Coen Brothers Western is a shit-hot weekend if you ask me.

Creators:
Written (screenplay) and Directed by the Coen Brothers, I believe I needn't say more. Except, I don't see what people's problems are with Burn After Reading, I thought it was an excellent followup to No Country For Old Men, proving their diversity.

What happened:
A sharp tongued, witty, charismatic fourteen year old girl, Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is in search of her father's murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). She enlists the ageing, one eyed Marshall, Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), to hunt him down and is (loosely) joined by a Texas ranger, LeBoeuf (Matt Damon) who has been on Chaney's tracks since he shot a senator in Texas.

What I liked:
Dialogue: The incessantly quick back and forth was exhilarating and all three of the main characters - along with any of the supporting cast - really sold it. Rooster's bumbling semi-coherent ramblings were hilarious, so they entertained, as well as giving a convenient way to gain insight into his past.
Hailee Steinfeld: What a strong year for onscreen females. Natalie Portman's accomplished, Oscar winning performance in Black Swan, another Oscar winner in Melissa Leo (The Fighter), along with Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom) playing the controlling matriarchal older demographic, with Annette Benning and Julianne Moore (The Kids are Alright) covering the caring and maternal side. Then there was the young Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone) to the even younger Hailee Steinfeld here. Then you have Chloe moretz's Hit Girl from Kick-Ass and Emma stone really breaking through with Easy A, both propping up the commercial mainstream market with great performances. There are many more, but I have already digressed some what. Basically, Steinfeld ran the show in this film and completely blew me away.
No black and white heroes and villains: They were all, well rounded individuals (see themes - amorality).
Funny: It was really funny in bits without losing gravitas.

What disappointed:
Grown up Mattie: When Mattie was grown up, she just didn't seem right. I know that's not much of a sophisticated or eloquent way to put it, but that's it, she just didn't seem to me as though she was an older version of the girl we had just spent all that time with.
Free Market justification:This didn't affect how amazing I thought the film was; how beautiful it looked, how witty, punchy and well delivered the dialogue was, but it must be noted how much of a false justification this film makes for free market principles that have been exposed as ridiculous (see themes).

Themes:
Free market economy: Everything was a transaction; transactions that kept the whole thing going, driving the narrative and dictating the relationships between characters. In fact, there wasn't much of a hint that Cogburn and Leboeuf were doing this for any conception of good, or doing 'the right thing'. Everyone was motivated by financial reward (except of course Mattie's drive for vengence). The film never judgmentally looked down on this or used any caricature of greed, in fact it naturalised that this sort of little narrative obsessed, free market principle makes the world go round and through this system problems solve themselves. This is clearly bullshit; this principal has actually led to massive wealth inequality and the collapse of the Western (pun intended) world.
Amorality of this free market: This justification of an amoral free market ties in with well rounded villains; they just reckon that they can make more money in this line of work. Hence, the scumbag murderer that they build Chaney up to be throughout turns out to not be all that bad. Even more so, Lucky Ned is more than kind and accomodating to Mattie. The same moral ambiguity exists for the film's protagonists: Rooster tells his story of the New Mexico escapade, when he robbed a high interest bank. 'Stealing is stealing' Mattie told him, and he was like yeah that's what New Mexico thought. It must be added actually, that it is a wider concept of value and financial reward than just money; there is a value put on everything: money, time, risk, etc. The villains just take that extra risk, for extra reward.
Strong woman, but only inside civilisation: Mattie unexpectedly ran rings round everyone in the city (civilisation). Not just those that are ingrained in society, like the shopkeeper, but Lebeouf and Cogburn, who are a sort of hybrid of civilsation and wildernss, but only when inside the town - inside civilisation. Once they stepped into the wilderness, she still showed her grit, but it was very clear that she was out of her depth, with her dialogue drastically reduced.

Scene of the film:
When she takes the shopkeeper for all that money. What a way to show how she can control the world of economics and commerce (the controlling language of the western world). It also showed how much of an important role she would go on to have in a world that is increasingly based in civilisation and away from the dwindling wilderness (in which her uncomfort was evident).

Performance of the film:
Hailee steinfeld. I should have made clear above.