Best film of the year (so far): Paul Weitz's beautiful, brilliant, moving BEL CANTO

What a surprise is BEL CANTO, the new movie directed by Paul Weitz (and which could hardly be farther away in subject, tone and skill from his first film, American Pie!), with a screenplay adapted by Anthony Weintraub and Weitz from the award-winning novel of the same name by Ann Patchett. Mr. Weitz, shown below, has now directed in so many different genres that he is can certainly not be pigeon-holed -- which is undoubted as he wants it. Still, I would in no way have expected to be this strongly engulfed by and then finally moved -- not to tears; at least, not right away -- to the kind of deep, profound sense of possibility, joy and then loss that the performing arts so rarely provide. (Several hours post-viewing those tears unexpectedly arrived; the movie sticks with me, even now, days after viewing it.)

When we finished the film, my spouse at once remarked how much it reminded him of Our Country's Good, that great play by Timberlake Wertenbaker that had a too-short Broadway run back in 1991. In Bel Canto, the humanizing force, rather than residing, as in the play, in the power of theater, is instead found in music, specifically opera. The result is the same: the bringing together of diverse people and ideas into the kind harmony that progressives so desire, and that those in power so often deliberately prevent.

What genre of a film is Bel Canto? Without giving away much of the wonderfully imagined and executed plot, the movie's a mash-up. Part love story(ies), thriller, social/political critique, art-about-art, terrorism (but by whom?) and lots more, the movie puts you in touch with characters who grow and change, finally becoming as memorable as any you're likely see this year (or for that matter last year or next).

Not having read the novel (which is probably better than the film because novels almost always are), I can only judge this movie. What Weitz and Weintraub especially excel at lies in their ability to create the illusion of time passing both artfully and believably so that everything we see here seems viable, given the circumstances and characters.

That sense of days and weeks passing is vital to the tale's credibility, and it is handled here as well as I've ever seen it. The film has been cast exquisitely, too. Though its lead actors -- Julianne Moore (above) as a world-famous opera singer (we hear Renée Fleming on the soundtrack doing the singing) and Ken Watanabe (at left on poster, top) as an uber-wealthy and successful businessman -- are maybe not the most memorable of the characters, Ms Moore smartly captures both this singer's entitlement and her humanity, while Watanabe's eastern reserve and inscrutability slowly, effectively crumble.

The film's most interesting character -- the likes of which movies so seldom bring to life this well -- belongs to the Japanese translator (beautifully played by Ryô Kase, shown above, center), fluent in several languages, who accompanies Watanabe and discovers so much new about himself during the "siege." Also in the fine international cast are Sebastian Koch (below) as a harried Red Cross worker and Christopher Lambert (in the penultimate photo, below) as a hostage who proves multi-talented.

The "terrorists" are almost equally memorable. There are quite a few of these, and each is brought to fine and specific life with a few smart brushstrokes by actors who make the most of every one of their moments. Especially strong are Tenoch Huerta (as the Commander) and Maria Mercedes Coray, shown at right in the photo at bottom (who plays the young female recruit named Carmen).

The film is full of little ironies, sometimes involving language and translation. One of the richest and funniest is what most unites the film's missing dictator with some of the terrorists in this Latin American country. Of course, it's a telenovela.

As it moves along, the movie takes on almost the quality of a long-hoped-for fantasy -- one into which, from it outset, we know that reality must finally intrude. Until then, a wondrous little society is created that may take a permanent place in your mind and heart. TrustMovies found Bel Canto the most beguiling, appealing and finally moving piece of cinema he's seen in a long while. No other film has made him think, feel and care this much about such a diverse set of characters living through such a singular event.

From Screen Media Films (by far the best movie I've yet seen from this particular distributor) and running just 102 minutes, Bel Canto opens this Friday, September 14, in New York City (at the Cinepolis Chelsea) and in Los Angeles (at Laemmle's Monica Film Center). Here in the Miami area, the film opens the following Friday, September 21, at the Bill Cosford Cinema and in the weeks to come will hit another 25 cities and theaters nationwide. To see all currently scheduled playdates, cities and theaters, click here and scroll down.

Fredrik Stanton's UPRISING: Egypt's Arab Spring in a way we've not been privy to--until now; a short Q&A with the filmmaker

Can it really have been almost two years since the world watched its television set, enrapt, as Egypt's citizens, in what we were told at the time was a peaceful demonstration, brought about the downfall and abdication of their highly unpopular President/Dictator Hosni Mubarek? Next month marks the two-year anniversary of that storied event, time enough for the world to have realized -- yet again, if anyone's sense of history remains intact -- that Democracy doesn't simply appear in a country, once the current set of bad guys bites the dust.

The occasion for my musing is the theatrical opening today of a new documentary called UPRISING, from first-time filmmaker Fredrik Stanton (shown at right) that gives us the aforemen-tioned event in a manner that seems to me more compelling and complete than anything I've yet seen -- certainly more so than the sound-bite TV coverage we received, and even more than the interesting, on-the-ground-amongst-the-people documentary Tahrir: Liberation Square, that opened at the Mayles Cinema this past June.

For those particularly concerned with what has happened to Egypt since those heady days, I urge you to read the excellent article in this week's The New Yorker magazine by Peter Hessler, explaining quite a bit about The Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that rose to power shortly after the overthrow of Mubarek. Mr. Stanton's film, by necessity, deals only with the period of the initial protest leading up regime change, but the view it allows us to see and the voices we hear are interesting & pointed.

Mr. Stanton also provides us the clearest, most focused assessment of the reasons for the protest -- repression, youth activism & social media, the murder of Khaled Said, and the Tunisian revolution -- and then shows us why all this helped turn a protest into the amazing event that it became. (You may find the story of Khaled and the powerful photo shown of his mutilated body enough, all on their own, to foment a revolution.)

To mange this point-by-point, step-by-step recap, the filmmaker interviews a fairly wide range of Egyptians who protested, from students to one rather famous actor, and then intercuts after the fact a lot of on-the-street action with intelligent, thoughtful ruminations from his talking heads.

The movie helps us understand the incomprehension and stupidity of the Mubarek regime in the manner in which it tried to contain the revolution. As one speaker explains, the decision to shut down internet access was pivotal -- not in clamping down on things, but in forcing citizens back out into the streets which was by then the best means of communication and exactly what the regime did not want to happen.

We also learn, Khaled Said aside, that this was anything but a peaceful, non-violent revolution. While the protesters were initially non-violent, things changed. Notes one speaker, "If you beat us, we will beat you; touch us and we will touch you." At another point, men kneel down in prayer in Tahrir Square, and the regime attacks. "Kill us whilst we pray," a demonstrator urges. "Show us how ugly you can be." While, for the demonstrators, it was mostly merely pushing, the police, we learn, would sometimes shoot protesters in the face. In the end, the body count was 840 killed and more than 6,000 injured. So much for the non-violence theory.

This is a powerful movie, and though we know how it turns out, Mr. Stanton has made the event seem exciting, suspenseful -- and most especially vivid, vital and important -- all over again. Uprising opens today, Friday, Jan. 11, in Manhattan at the Quad Cinema.

 Meet the filmmaker in person, as Fredrick Stanton 

shows up for a Q&A with his audience 

following the 7:15 show tonight, Friday, January 11.

*************

TrustMovies has his own short Q&A with this filmmaker, too. The following questions were emailed to him, post-viewing. Below, TM appears in boldface, Fredrik Stanton in standard type:

As middle east dictatorships fall, whether the Shaw in Iran, Sadaam in Iraq and now Mubarak in Egypt, all they ever seem to be replaced with is horrific religious fundamentalism. Any hope here for democracy resting side by side with Islam?

The important thing is protection of basic rights, minority rights, separation of powers, freedom of the press, and a functioning independent judiciary. If these are put in place, there are fewer opportunities for abuse. The Middle East would benefit from more examples of countries where piety does not have to result in control and despotism.

Amen to that.  So what is your gut feeling, and that of those Egyptians you are closest to, regarding what is going to happen? Will the military allow any sort of democracy? And worse, is the Muslim Brotherhood set to destroy the budding of democracy?

The young activists I interviewed are keenly aware that removing Mubarak is only the first step to achieving a functioning democracy in Egypt. It is very encouraging that they have continued to push back against both the Egyptian military and the Muslim brotherhood's encroaching on their rights. This is a process that will take time to play out, and there may be a period of continued instability. The opposition is learning from its mistakes, and over time I have confidence in those Egyptians who desire freedom and don't want to live under an authoritarian theocracy.

I am hoping that this will not be the final choice Egypt faces, but if so, which is better for the country -- a secular dictatorship or a fundamentalist religion leading it?

I think the distinction between a secular dictatorship or a fundamentalist religion leading the country means little to those who can be arrested without cause, taken away in the middle of the night and tortured, or to to the people whose government is unaccountable to their basic needs. Lack of freedom in any form is unacceptable, and the Egyptian people deserve better than either type of tyranny.

Finally: my favorite part of the film -- and one of its most ironic, hilarious sections (I thought, at least) was your interview with ex Ambassador Frank G. Wisner, who tells us something to the effect that seeing an orderly transition simply had to be the U.S. ambition because, "We are a responsible nation." Did you have to keep from giggling at this point? Hasn't the U.S. supported Mubarak for decades? 

I think Ambassador Wisner represents a major school of thought in American foreign policy that believes the US needs to deal with governments in power, even if we find their behavior offensive, especially when vital strategic interests are at stake. This is why the US supported Mubarak for decades, and continues to support similar regimes around the world. I recognize that this is a prevailing view, and I strongly disagree with it. Of course the US must look after its strategic interests, but in the long run our interests are better served by supporting peoples' desire for freedom, which is more consistent with our principles. And, as we have found, dictatorships are fragile, and when they fall, this leaves us in a very awkward position.

I agree, and I wish our political leaders could find a way to implement this idea. Anyway, thank you so much for this film, and I'll look forward to whatever you're doing next. What might that be -- if you even know at this point? 

I'm hoping it'll be a vacation. Thank you for taking the time to write about the film and share it with your audience.

DVDebut: Patricio Guzmán returns yet again to SALVADOR ALLENDE

For Chileans of a certain age and leftist political leanings, Salvador Allende is the touchstone and always will be, so long as those people live. Likewise for right-leaning Chileans, Augusto Pinochet is the revered model. The latter's overthrow of Allende's democratically elected government (by the American-backed Chilean military) and the 15-year dictatorship that followed, along with the many missing and murdered dissidents, will remain the singular event/time period of all these lives -- no matter that many of Chile's young people today want to cry "Get over it!" There is no getting over it until all those who lived through these decades lave been laid to rest. For Chile, this time frame occupies a place similar to the disappeared in Argentina or, for the elders of Spain, their Civil War.

The Chilean/
Spanish writer, teacher and filmmaker Patricio Guzmán (shown at left) has amassed quite a body of work involving the Allende/
Pinochet time period. Obsessed (but in a useful manner) is not too strong a word, I think, to describe his connection to this era. His massive, three-part docu-mentary/history The Battle of Chile, together with Chile, Obstinate Memory and The Pinochet Case are probably his best-known films in this country. (The filmmaker's newest work, the award-winning Nostaligia for the Light, opens this coming Friday at IFC Center in New York. I'll have more to say about it later this week.)

About Guzmán's Salvadore Allende, for those not so much informed about this Chileans leader, the documentary should prove a good place to begin. Much shorter (100 minutes) than the four-and one-half-hour-long Battle of Chile, Guzmán still uses a number of shots and scenes from that film in his newer documentary.  Some of these I was thrilled to see again (that indelible sequence of the young man running through the streets, pulling the cart!); others, because I was already aware of them and knew the background, seemed more like filler.

What the documentary offers that no one interested in politics and history will want to pass up is the interview with former U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry that Guzmán weaves through the movie. This give-and-take provides what can only be called an insider's account of the absolute insistence of President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger that Allende and his democratic regime be stopped. Initially it seems that Korry might be sorry for the way things turned out ("things" that include Pinochet's reign of terror), but, no. The ex-ambasssador proves utterly unrepentant about the CIA-sponsored coup that overthrew the Chilean government -- using the old fear-of-Russian-Communism as the usual excuse. He even claims that his superiors kept the information about the coup from him at the time.

The other important reason to view this film is the debate Guzmán gives us between former militants from different political parties, as they argue over how and why Allende failed to defend the government in the period leading up to the coup by arming and mobilizing a people's militia as a counterforce to the military -- which was by then firmly controlled by forces who opposed Allende. This is probably the firmest argument for why the regime collapsed, but Guzmán has already made it clear that Allende wanted his government -- which had been democratically elected rather than taking the country by force, as did the Russians in 1917 and Castro in 1950s Cuba -- to above all remain democratic rather than becoming an armed force. This was not possible given the sleazy dealings of the Cuban right, together with those of the USA, and Allende paid for his miscalculation with his own life and those of many of his countrymen.

But would an armed militia -- which I can't imagine would not have led to a civil war, undoubtedly won by Pinochet's forces (supported, of course, by the USA) -- have resulted in any less suffering and death?  What all this says about the possibility of genuine democratic social change without accompanying armed force is not very positive or promising. Is it?

Salvadore Allende, from Icarus Films Home Video, is available for sale and rent this Tuesday, March 15. In English, French and Spanish, with English Subtitles, the DVD Bonus Features include a stills gallery by Chilean photographer Patricio Guzmán Campos, featuring 22 photos of Chile in the 1960s and 1970s and a theatrical trailer for Guzmán's latest film, Nostalgia for the Light.