#103 of 2011: Take Shelter

my motivation to see this movie came largely from my love of/current inability to witness thunderstorms, since i come from storms and now live in a weak, persistent drizzle. my anticipation was further strengthened by the other imagery included in the trailer (weightless livingrooms, birdclouds), the promises of which are gorgeously kept by the film's dream/hallucination sequences.

most of the film's other visuals are appropriately kept clean and naturalistic in the way that is comfortable enough to keep a viewer listening to the dialogue (which, in this case, is where most of the character development is stored) instead of continually ogling the scenery. after all, the film's emotional resonance is what makes it extraordinary, and that comes from the combination of personality-dense line delivery and the main character's thoughtful-though-sometimes-stunted process of trying to figure himself out. the aesthetics are simply the device by which the audience is reminded of the overwhelming bigness that our minds contain- successfully, if we're lucky.

#69 of 2011: Birth

Only extraordinarily focused storytelling can make a viewer feel so strongly about the emotions of characters who she knows almost nothing about and who she has no reason to particularly like. "Birth" never gets off topic, except for temporary indulgences in pure contemplation of the setting (that dining room, my god). Even then, the small, overpatterned, overlush rooms of Anna's apartment- rarely without a preponderance of visitors, supposedly still at their ten-years-long work of stabilizing Anna's emotions- are a physical reminder of the overwhelming density of the simple storyline.

It's important to note how huge a role omission plays in the film's poignancy. The decision to represent the original Sean minimally (with only an imageless voiceover at the opening of the film, followed by a faceless body running through the snow for 2.5 minutes before succumbing matter-of-factly to a heart attack) lays the foundation for the tense and unresolvable ambiguity about whether or not something paranormal is at work: we have to take most of our cues from Anna, because we can't compare the dead Sean to the boy Sean, played by Cameron Bright. The latter's performance is, itself, a kind of fillable blank- slow, deliberate, contemplative, cryptic. When he's on screen with Nicole Kidman's Anna (an irreparably affected woman whose apparent brokenness seems more and more to come from a well of deluded commitment to an ideal that probably never existed in the first place), it's almost as if we can see the clean slate of his nearly expressionless face and tone of voice being filled in by her desperation for the love she thought was hers when her husband was alive.

Another omission: answers. As always, I was perfectly happy to find no clean explanation for the mentally fatiguing ordeal that both main characters (and viewers, too) experience due to this plot. Hard facts are of negligible importance by the end of the film, if they were ever important at all.

Oh yea, and Lauren Bacall is the matriarch.

#57 of 2011: Dogtooth

the first thing i want to say has something to do with how absorptive this film is considering its 'bareness' and its peculiar premise. on some sort of coordinate plane with axes for viewer investment and narrative complexity and perceived production cost, "Dogtooth" would share a pushpin with Michael Haneke's films: it is a seemingly natural, straightforward location inhabited by a few important characters who interact in consistently compelling ways, as dictated by a story that is told enough to keep the viewer rapt without excessively defending its own probability.

as for acting: Christos Stergioglou as the dad is a paradigm tyrant, but Aggeliki Papoulia and Mary Tsoni as the daughters are especially impossible to stop watching. their dancing, their playing, their conversation (they are the only characters in the film between whom there is neither significant antagonism nor stifling distance), and their violations of the family's codes introduce a measure of doubt into attempts by the viewer to judge their situation. is it an unsustainable paradise which the facts of nature will not allow to persist? or is it an idyllic prison where they are unwitting (at least for the earlier bulk of their lives) victims whose right it is to escape? by the end of the film, this issue is cleared up, but- meaningfully- it is impossible to tell if the decisive factor originates inside or outside the house.

on the imagery front, nearly every shot is brimming with contradiction: appalling but comically absurd (father beating progeny with videocassette contraband which he has securely taped to his own hand), awkward and ravishing (the anniversary dance), violently chaotic while at the same time painterly (see below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtooth_(film)

#55 of 2011: O Brother, Where Art Thou?

as i become familiar with the work of the Coen Bros, they remind me more of Woody Allen in this way: i see what's going on in terms of style, and it is interesting (even astounding at particular moments), though as a whole, the thing doesn't shake me much. that said, it has to be acknowledged that with the Coens, specific triumphs (in narrative or character development or imagery) are often redemptive of the entire undertaking.

but first: a significant drawback. George Clooney's performance was possibly the most under-realized aspect of this movie, with the most obvious shortcoming being his line delivery- both his timing and his accent. i understand that his character is supposed to be a fast/sharp/smooth talker, so it makes sense for the audience to note a distinction between his speech and the drawls of his companions. but it becomes too obvious that he's half-assing when even John Goodman's minor character (also a salesman, and apparently a better one) sounds more authentic. and next to the measured and involved facial expressions and diction of Turturro and Nelson, Clooney simply comes off as unimpressive (instead of "faux impressive", as the writing seems to demand). Turturro and Nelson pull off the stylized melodrama with their typical comedic flair, especially when it's a tad corny. if Clooney weren't capable of doing the same, i might not feel so slighted. but that's what i get for watching "O Brother" after seeing "Burn After Reading". maybe he just needed time to learn.

now for the redemption: 1:09:03-1:09:21. i'm not sure if Roger Deakins or the Bros deserve the greater portion of credit for this, but it's a striking use of three things as simple as darkness, flashes of colored light, and camera movement (RESOURCEFUL EFFECTS. YES.).

what makes this different from other "camera descends into the narrative" scenes is its expertly nuanced balance between expressionism (dream sequence) and naturalism (scenery description). the camera pans down slowly while artificial blue flashes illuminate a branch so that it resembles the represented source of light. but the contrast is absolute between the black and the branch, and the flashes are short-lived and sparse, so that when a noose moves through the frame, it is logical to assume that what is being shown is simply a tree that has been prepared for a hanging. . . except that the darkness that follows the noose's appearance is invaded by an interior scene, with the camera continuing it's journey until it lands on a terrified John Turturro. it wouldn't make sense for a noose to be hanging above this building, and (because the panning had til now made sense) this is a bit jarring for the duration of the time it takes the camera to scan the room, from its rafters down to the bunks of sleeping men. by the moment movement ceases, by the time Turturro- awake amongst sleepers- fills the frame, the previous two images register not only as a combination that actually exists within the world of the story, but also as stark and terrifying fragments of a dream that has shaken this man awake. the camera's continued motion stitches everything together, paces the experience of the viewer in such a way that s/he and the character simultaneously "wake up". and it is good enough to recommend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F

#104 of 2010: Lost in Translation

Movies like this don't seem like they need me to say much about them. First, because so many people have seen them and have already said plenty about them, and second, because you should probably just watch them if you haven't already. (I'm not saying that I write extensively about movies like Fassbinder's "Lola" because they need me to talk about them, or haven't been widely seen. You know what I mean.)

One gripe: the "ahh-ahhh oooo-ooo ah oh aaahhh" music was a little much at times, particularly when Bill Murray gets to Tokyo. that should have been like, a pared-down cello, you know. but luckily that scene is fairly generic and I don't recall crappy sounds ruining any of the outstanding scenes.

It has been noted by plenty of critics, and I agree, that one of the most profound accomplishments of the story is that its "romance-without-sex"-ness doesn't come off as stifled or repressed (as if by wrong-headed 'morals'). The situation speaks clearly (almost startlingly) to the "issue"/odyssey/wonder that is friendship between supposed sexual counterparts, and it effectively and movingly challenges some very ingrained (though, thankfully, often questioned) notions about the kinds of relationships between men and women that might be considered "fulfilling". It doesn't make up our minds for us, either, doesn't tell us how wrong or right traditional wisdom is. The brief and inconclusive introductions of so many important factors help the Bill/Scarlett interaction to seem more like real life- where you can never quite say for sure- than a sermon on gender relations. If you haven't seen it yet, go ahead, it's "highly recommended" for being highly watchable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_Translation_(film)

#101 of 2010: The Wrestler

"The Wrestler" is punishing on several levels. It wraps up all the down(est)sides of everything from hero worship to commercialized body image to absentee fatherhood to nostalgia for the eighties (and the list goes on), while still getting viewers to care about what is happening to the characters (a point where that other Aronofsky adaptation, "Requiem for a Dream", largely failed, in my opinion). Mickey Rourke: yes. Marisa Tomei: yea, alright. Evan Rachel Wood: maybe not. The daughter storyline is to be expected. Of course this torn up old beast of a man fathered a child twentysome years ago (right?). But I feel like this aspect of the plot gets severely boiled down and serves (a little too exclusively) as an excuse for Randy to get to know the "Pam" side of "Cassidy". Which, cool, "we both have kids and shit, we both work in entertainment industries but are real people, look at us, we're real, but one of us definitely feels more real when we're working". And it's the super tan bleach blonde one. . . the man, the legend, the Ram. Cut to final RAM JAM. The End. I may have been too hard on "The Wrestler"'s narrative oomph, because immediately after I saw it, I watched "Goodfellas" for the first time, and of the two the latter stands out a bit more prominently in my mind. I still recommend the former, especially if you are into "walking in ____'s shoes" downers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrestler_(2008_film)

#96 of 2010: Inception

"thought it would be all about the visual, but it's more about the feel of it" -ariadne (ellen page)

no, ms. architect. you are mistaken. any feeling that "Inception" conveys is built primarily on visuals. in fact, not just the feeling, but the meaning and the narrative of the film are rooted much more firmly in aesthetics than in verbal poetics or hard logic. and i don't have a problem with this, because it made for incredible watching. that "waking up from 50 yrs of fantasy building" bit, where marion cotillard suicidally contemplates a knife in front of a positively glowing red vegetable on a cutting board- simple, stunning photography. and the dream world training run with ariadne was like a wonderful over-the-top magic stage routine during which you forget to keep track of the performer's hands. most of the movie is like that, if "the performer's hands" is seen as a metaphor for "the meat and bones of the story". of course, i'm not willing to let everything slide for the sensuality of the movie. one thing that annoyed me was how the male team members had to rely almost entirely on their ethnicities and quickly exemplified "special abilities" to provide distinction amongst them. their personalities were all but nonexistent. another gripe was the undue portion of the weight of the story that seemed cast on ariadne "accidentally" forcing her way into cobb's unconscious. and seriously, "ariadne"? the lovely, smart female student who dresses almost exclusively in obvious layers is not only the architect entrusted to build the dream worlds, but also the guardian of cobb's fragile secret and basically broken emotional composure? *her namesake is the thread girl who helped the youths get out of the labyrinth? then i don't understand why whoever was in charge of the soundtrack didn't make sure to play "dream weaver" every time the camera (playing the p.o.v. of cobb) turns to her.

although this short version of a review seems to lean towards negative, i have no trouble at all recommending "Inception". it is, in general, a compelling film and a legendarily beautiful parade of images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_(film)

*i had ariadne and arachne confused. duuuh. but still. blatent mythology tie in to do with textile production.

#93 of 2010: B13

the script was fairly shallow, with the white, male, compassionate, heroic ass-kickers bringing it from both sides of the "tracks" (or wall) with wonderfully choreographed flair. as with several of mr. besson's film projects, the characters are fairly strong iterations of recognizable stereotypes, the underlying message is thought-provoking, and the outcome is warm and right, even though the situations sometimes skirt absurdity without fully embracing it (a dangerous place to be). i found the little sister's story undeniably lacking and hurried and flat where it could have either contributed or been left alone. but i'll recommend "B13" overall for the parkour and solid action storyline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_13

#91 of 2010: Russian Ark

there were rembrandts. spectral guides. slices of history taken not from cultural climaxes or defining moments, but from the daily homelife of royals, the nondescript pain of common people, and the in-between and just-before moments that define a nation as much as the most recognizable pinpoints on timelines. the power of the film comes from the drifting, from the soundtrack that keeps the viewer uncomfortable, from the views, and from the feeling that we are actually stumbling- right along with the disembodied voice and his guide, the marquis- in and out of real history. "Russian Ark" is both breathtaking and subtle, incorporating the most intricate architecture and overdone period costume into a bare-bones non-narrative that pretty much amounts to a fantastically compelling and tantalizingly incomplete history lesson. sokurov has certainly made me crave information about Russia and renewed my desire to become more versed in general world history. major props to tillman buttner for his stamina and timing with the swooping pans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark

#88 of 2010: Micmacs a Tire-Larigot

Some large, uncomfortable and unsightly stitches hold together the endlessly pleasing visual gags of "Micmacs" and the films fairly heavy (complete with close-ups of photos of war-mutilated children) anti-weaponry message. One of these stitches is a prolonged montage where the camera watches people watch YouTube and sometimes skips the people and watches YouTube directly. Like other reviewers of the film, I wouldn't have minded the romance between the comedian and the contortionist taking up a bit more screen time, but, "Amelie" this is not. In the end, the sight gags worked, and I liked the movie, holes, hasty sutures, and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micmacs_(film)

#81 of 2010: Dear Wendy

most of the reviews you'll find of this are negative in one of two ways: either they rip the movie apart for being absurd and unfollowable, or they seem not to mind the movie except for the "obvious" loathing of America and Americans which all Lars Von Trier's creative output (supposedly) seeks to exude. a few see it as more complex, and i'll side with them as far as the first hour and five minutes is concerned. during that time, this whole "pacifism with guns" thing plays out interestingly, confusing in its paradoxical theory and clearly unsustainable as a way of life. plenty of narrative details are left out the whole way through, but other embellishments (mainly velvet or pearl or wood) are inserted in their place, and as all of the rising actions occur- the kids become truly happy in their committed (and impressively academic) pursuits, their concealed weaponry maximizes their confidence as worthwhile members of a dead-end society, their parents die off of apparently unimportant natural causes- everything looks nice enough, is fanciful enough, and develops a style enough to hold your attention. beware the dreaded plot climax. of course it's a showdown. how could it not be a showdown. but the premise for the shoot out with the law is completely brainless. built on a foundation of a few lines of shitty dialogue (it isn't Danso Gordon's fault that his character was saddled with being the bridge from "secret good times with friends and guns" to "fire-away suicide mission to deliver some coffee"), the scene that allows for the guns to "awaken" and serve their destructive purpose never tries to defend the protagonists' hitherto good-heartedness. the first kill has no discernible motivation beyond shutting up an annoying adult, which completely destroys any affinity i had for the kids. you can go back and forth all you want about whether or not this is satire, who is being caricatured, if Lars Von Trier makes movies exclusively to try and trick Americans into paying to see themselves made fun of (I don't feel like a target here, but apparently some people do? maybe the ones who have managed to befriend only named revolvers?). the way i judge a movie is by how well it holds together, how skillfully it does its own thing. this one disintegrated as it tried to figure out if it said that out loud or just thought it. watch it until 1:05:08, then turn it off and make up your own ending. and P.S.: you did a pretty good job, Mr. Vinterberg. the writing sucked way more than the things i feel like you had control over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Wendy

#80 of 2010: Moon

Sam Rockwell is, in general, fun to watch. The retro effects and costuming combine with the binary scenery (in the base or in the rover outside the base) and "British" filming to give the film a "walking with dinosaurs" style documentary kind of look into a time we can't see photographic evidence of. "Moon" is like a dramatization of the future, a recreation of what happens years from now, when the line between valuable life and expendable life rests in a different place than it does now (currently, corporations allow oil rig employees to blow up because safety hampers production. in the future that kind of abuse might be a little more flagrant). yea, the story wasn't air-tight. if it had been weightier, more emotionally demanding, i would have taken issue with the glaring moments of "nah-ah, no way". but the film was mostly sweet or funny or thoughtful rather than epic or conscience-shaking or heart-rending. its axe grinding was more akin to the main character's whittling (versus the extreme display of corporate greed in, say, "District 9"): it's not all that detailed, it simply beats sitting on your ass and forgetting about life's finer print (that is, what actually makes it matter, which people profess to care about, though not enough to read into it too deeply). what i mean is, Jones and Parker sort of indict LUNAR inc., but the story is more about being a human- and the "sarang" (the name of the base which i learned from wikipedia means "love" in Korean) that defines us, whether clones from a common source or simply fellow members of the species- than fighting "the man", or even picking out an "evil" "the man" to fight. "Moon" doesn't point fingers or seek violent comeuppance, it quietly asks us to consider the question of the opening credits: "where are we now ?" on the timeline that leads to the future depicted here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(film)

#79 of 2010: Hunger

i'm tempted not to say a whole lot about this. one reason is that i still can't be absolutely sure that it streamed correctly. but i'm fairly certain it did, so what i do say will be based on what i saw/heard (and didn't hear). most of the movie i saw was silent. if not silent, it was muffled except for the choice mic-ing of wood being shattered and water being splashed, etc. this may be what one critic meant by complaining about the film coming off as "scrubbed of political dialogue" or something to that effect. but the visuals were so audible, and the near-absence of "civilized sounds" like talking or music makes the minute or so of violin (beginning at minute 28:49) the most expressive audio possible at that moment in the film. also, any kind of vague politics or selectively-contextualized fault gets quickly re-embodied in individuals when nothing about those individuals is conveniently explained.

another reason that i don't want to say a whole lot is that this guy- http://www.donalforeman.com/blog/?cat=2 - already has, and i think you should read it. you should also see "Hunger" for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_(2008_film)

#75 of 2010: Together

besides the oblique jabs which consist of the inclusion of a "crazy hippie aunt" or "weird psychic/naturopath", i feel like movies in general shy away from critically examining political and social liberalism in a serious way (i'm not counting outright satires like Allen's "everyone says i love you"). bucking that trend (as i perceive it), "Together" offers a sizable helping of pros and cons concerning practices like communal living, political sexuality, and liberal parenting. Though aspects of radical counter-culture are introduced as stark theoretical oppositions to mainstream family values, the narrative allows a much more complex exploration of the left-leaning continuum to take place. By the still-uncertain (but happy anyway) denouement, we've gotten to know left-wing counterparts to every right-wing stereotype: the protective parent, the self-serving hypocrite, the political evangelist, the sheepish proponent of the most idealistic version of hir beliefs (in place of the right's "american dream" of freedom to prosper is the left's ideal of "harmonious equality" in which the group prospers because of the altruism of its members), and so on. all this anthropological/sociological documentary (the zooms, quick turns, and handheldiness of the camera work are reminiscent of early, possible-to-presume-unscripted reality shows) is part of a complete narrative package, with interesting and interwoven plot lines and a really great brother-sister-parallel-yelling-at-significant-others scene. the subtitles on netflix's disc were definitely shoddy, but who doesn't love listening to Swedish, even if there are big holes in the translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Together_(2000_film)

#73 of 2010: I'm Not Scared

after reading some of the facts about the setting of this film (which were not made explicit in the movie), i get the feeling that there is more here for Italians than for the international crowd. it's like setting a film that's not about slavery in the 1850's in America: we're gonna automatically figure that historical moment in as we watch the specific story unfold. but in "I'm Not Scared"s case, i would have had no idea that the 70's was a particularly dangerous decade for Italy, when assasinations and kidnappings were relatively common. national implied history aside, the narrative is generally heartwarming, culminating in the main character (a ten-year-old who you couldn't convince me was less than twelve by the looks of him) demonstrating incredible altruism and compassion in defiance of the selfishness and violence of the adults in his life. there is a bit too much maudlin music and the slow motion hand grasp of the ending is sort of terrible, but the film breaks even overall, because it is SO much FUN watching the brother and sister gesticulate and bicker. i feel like children can sometimes act as lovable caricatures of cultural habits (after all, they are in the process of learning their own culture), and these kids do a fierce whole-hand point, a mannerism i've come to know as particularly Italian. "I'm Not Scared" ends up falling somewhere between recommended and not, so you decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_not_scared

#68 of 2010: Pirate Radio

i'm not going to go too far into this one because it would be a waste of energy to write all the mean things that could be said of it. the short version: "Pirate Radio" (aka "The Boat That Rocked" in the UK) packs a huge ensemble of half-baked, over-flattened characters and continually puts lame gags and cheap references to the fabled sexual freedom of the 60's ahead of meaningful story development. i didn't watch the deleted scenes, but reading recaps of them has me wondering why the character formulation was cut to make way for the two most horribly pointless plot-lines possible (both including stupid, fickle, pretty women scheming to get what they want by putting on coquettish little shows; both devoid of the possibility of an interesting outcome). i would have much rather seen the backstory on Felicity, a slightly more two-dimensional (though not "hollywood-looking") female character. or the backstory on any of the characters, for that matter, because they all seem to have arrived on this ship from out of left field. the truly enjoyable parts: all of Bill Nighy's acting, the rock'n'roll, and the totally contrived but joyous ending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boat_That_Rocked

#66 of 2010: Strictly Sexual

as a story it was decent, if strictly heterocentric and also improbable (but since when is improbable in itself a problem, right?). the title is ironic; the film actually offers some refreshing takes on love and sexuality (though it seems to lose any ground it gains during intercut "men on relationships" and "women on relationships" counseling sessions. on the other hand, this could simply be a reflection on how we are generally socialized to view the opposite sex and not the opinions of those who made the film. after all, what is said during this scene calls into question a lot of the simple binary assumptions we've been led to make about the four characters [2 men and 2 women], and the advice that is given is shown to be ineffective later in the movie. ok i've changed my mind, there is a net progress regarding gender stereotypes) i agree with the netflix reviewer who mentioned that a serious re-edit would do this some good, and i found some of the dialogue a bit "intro to fiction" sounding. some scenes, however, did achieve the recognizable realism that the entire movie was struggling towards: i.e. the scene where stannie describes his strained (now non-existent) relationships with his parents. it sounds convincing, his somewhat careful, slightly vague (but absolutely effective) in-a-nutshell description of why he and his family mutually opted out of keeping in contact when he was a teenager, and it lays a good foundation for our understanding of what happens to his relationship with donna. overall, though, this is another case of the movie being less interesting than the life of the movie - it has been released almost solely on the internet, streaming on netflix and hulu, and through those channels has managed to make 10 times it's production budget thus far. it may be a landmark in film distribution, but certainly is not one in filmmaking or storytelling. read the press on "strictly sexual", but skip seeing it unless you don't find less-than-good acting or hurried plot climaxes distracting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strictly_Sexual

#63 of 2010: Battle Royale

holy distopian microcosm of teenagers participating in a twisted, government-ordered, popularly sanctioned bloodbath. this story and director do a fantastic job of taking the viewer along on the emotional and mental rollercoaster that the kids are strapped to by way of their electronic collars. there are points where you're definitely gonna want to shut it off, and it'll be because of the obliteration of cinematic boundaries of "decency" that you're used to as an American. the movie itself stands as an attention-holding, thought-provoking examination of social issues, especially those that make complicated shitstorms out of the lives of many young people. it serves it's humor dark and absurd, and even though you get a little pulled out of the drama and chuckle, deep down, the part where the girl shoots-to-kill the boy and the boy tells her to run and save herself and she says "why?" and he says "you're so cute", that's gonna give you back the ability to see the characters as kids, which in turn is going to make it even more clear how scary and fucked up the premise requires this future to be. watch it when you get the urge to rent a slasher, but subsequently realize that you'd like your disbelief to be suspendable and your two hours to mean something (even if it's not precisely clear what).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale_(film)

#61 of 2010: Hero

The colors and drama are formulated as arduously as you would expect in a film by Zhang Yimou, and it pays off. Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are, as always, beacons of emotional subtlety and masterful believability. Also, the CGI scenes worked: while highly (some might say preposterously) stylized, i found them tasteful and well-incorporated [as opposed to some of the tacky scenery in "Curse of the Golden Flower"]. Overall, an absolutely beautiful epic, a legendarily romanticized historical fiction that can hold the viewer's attention with spectacle alone, but that doesn't forget to tell a moving and somewhat didactic story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film)

#58 of 2010: The Lives of Others

netflix was right, i do give it that many stars. what a totally absorbing film brimming with narrative convolutions (which tighten up the suspense without feeling too contrived, except in the way that certain interactions between characters are contrived and based around a "subject/audience" relationship). besides being a studied observation and commentary on oppressive political systems (aren't they all), the movie also handles a very wide array of topics {art-making, patronage, patriotism, and ambition [good and bad kinds, for the sake of creative fulfillment and for its own sake]} in micro- they are dealt with to the extent that they fit into the specific story being told, which is one hell of an emotionally/historically dense slice of life. Ulrich Muhe is INCREDIBLE as the listener/interrogator, and his character's dual/opposing roles in the name of state security exemplify the kind of provoking dichotomies that arise less-than-manageably from the premise. there are clear villians here, and- in a move which movies with clear villians don't usually make- "Lives" exposes those men who would be tagged "evil" in more epic histories as simply immature, infantile even: hungry for attention and praise and control for no reason but to fan their little teenagesque egos. . . with disproportionately tragic though entirely possible consequences. watch this one, but maybe not right before bed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others