FilmJerk Favorites

A group of unique directors and the essential works that you've got to see.

||| Stanley Kubrick |||
Stanley Kubrick

A filmmaker of international importance, Kubrick was one of the only directors to work within the Studio System and still have full artistic control over his films from scripting through post-production, prompting Time Magazine to compare Kubrick’s early independence with the magnitude of Orson Welles.

An uncompromising antiwar film, this gut-wrenching drama depicts a World War I officer as he labors with an ultimately futile defense for three painfully sympathetic men tried for cowardice. Kubrick artistically utilizes a beautifully washed-out black and white photography to represent the muddied boundaries of right and wrong, and the many gray areas that lay between.

A fabulous and inspiring adventure, this visually stunning epic stars Kirk Douglas as the heroic slave who fights to lead his people to freedom from Roman rule. Although a clear departure from Kubrick’s oeuvre, “Spartacus” is an all time classic helmed by a man with a precise vision who is equally capable of crafting colossal spectacle, tense tête-à-têtes, and a tender moment between lovers.

This film is so stylish it’s easy to forget it’s a horror film at heart. Considered to be the thinking man’s thriller, Kubrick molds this very particularly “Stephan King” material into the portfolio of his films about human failure, as the hero’s desperate desire to become somebody ends in frustration and tragedy.

Recommended by CarrieSpecht

Advertisement

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

By EdwardHavens

January 26th, 2005

Some may agree it is always interesting to see an opposing point of view, even if only to solidify your own perspective. So while Bathsheba Ratzkoff and Sut Jhally’s documentary “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: U.S. Media and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” reaffirmed my opinion that American news coverage of the Middle East conflict is unfairly one-sided in favor of the Israelis, it also confirmed my beliefs that, like Robert Greenwald’s recent “Outfoxed,” more and more documentary filmmakers today have zero qualms engaging in the very same polemic attitudes they and their films are supposedly denouncing.


“Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” does an admirable job in setting up its arguments. That Israel’s actions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are an illegal occupation of Palestinian land, condemned for more than thirty-five years by the United Nations. That Israel set up the Hasbara Project to ensure good press in the United States, and that all major American news organizations are in leagues with the Hasbara Project to present “news” from the Middle East conflict which always shows Israel in a positive light. And that since September 11th, efforts have been made to always show any and all Palestinian actions in the region, regardless of the levels of violence, as a terrorist act. Now, how much you believe these bullet points will depend on your own personal feelings of Israel, Palestine and war, and “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” does its best to show the levels of difference in coverage, showing US network news covering an incident, followed by a BBC reporter covering the same situation. The disparity in reporting is often startling.

Yet, this film’s greatest strengths is also its biggest weakness. Outside of its small group of talking heads, including MIT linguist professor Noam Chomsky (the seemingly obligatory go-to guy for all discussions highly critical of the American media), “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” uses almost exclusively BBC footage to make its case. Surely there must be one other non-Arab news organization in the world besides the BBC who is, in the filmmaker’s minds, properly covering the Middle East conflict. Could they not find a single clip from Australia’s Nine Network, Hong Kong’s TVB or Japan’s TV Asahi which would favorably add to their argument?

“Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” remains engaging as it provokes viewers to consider not only a civilization half a world away but our own premonitions and prejudices. But by employing the very practice it seeks to condemn, the film will ultimately leave viewers just as angry and frustrated about the conflict at the end as they were at the start.

My rating: C