Redaction is an odd one: unlike most World War II films, it's not action laden. Unlike many Vietnam films, it's not a seminal piece of cinema. However, one quality it does share with the recent crop of [insert Middle-Eastern conflict here] is the controversy that surrounds it. But controversy does not (necessarily) a good film make...
Ultimately, Redacted boils down to a simple black and white tale of morality. But not in the twisty-turny-role-reversing-makes-you-take-a-look-at-your-own-set-of-morals kind of way.
Our narrator and (remarkably steady-handed) cameraman, Angel Salazar, wields his Handicam in an effort to create a film-school worthy masterpiece. He is Neutral. Our machiavellian villain, Reno Flake Bad. And our hero, Sergeant Jim Vazques is good. That's how Redacted rolls. Ordinarily, this would work, should it be the basic premise of a balls - out HOOAH! action flick. But it's not. Events pan out in a manner more suited to a semi-art-house reflective film on the evils of war and its ethical implications, and I suppose that's what Redaction was shooting for. But, unfortunately for 'visionary' director Brian De Palma, the concept falls flat on its face.
Take a scene near the beginning: The squad of Marines we follow are manning a road block. Cut to a time lapse of activity through said road block. Cut to a car crossing the danger line, and being shot up. Cut to the wounded pregnant woman in said car. Yes, its visceral and shocking. But no-one was really in the wrong - the questions raised answer themselves, to an extent.
I don't want to ruin the plot for you, so I won't give away any further details, aside from the inclusion of a truly God-Awful 'vid-cast' halfway through. It made me want to claw out my face.
That aside, one flaw that runs the entire length of the film is inconsistency. For the first quarter or so of the film, there are French subtitles. That occasionally turn English. Laik, wtf? Am I missing something?! Also, the occasional flitting about of perspectives could be regarded as clever and subversive, but in this case lends the movie and air of indecisiveness. For Redacted 2, keep it constant Mr De Palma.
But this pales into insignificance when the actual nature of the film is considered; it just feels so... forced. You get the impression that controversy is included for the sake of publicity, not to actually add anything. Don't get me wrong, it's harrowing stuff, but the fact that I read that off the DVD case pays testiment to my earlier assertion.
So, after very little deliberation, I'd un-recommend Redacted. De Palma, for your next tale of moral ambiguity against the backdrop of an unjust war, decide if you're filming an essay or an action flick. Just don't waste my time with a combination of both. It doesn't work. Capiche?
No comments:
Post a Comment